Date   

Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

deonb
 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 04:31 PM, Roland Christen wrote:
Do you need a Dec encoder for what? Remember, Dec doesn't have to track.
 

Dec encoder provides push-to recovery functionality which is a big plus on a ultra-portable mount.

My vote would be: Ultra-low weight, Clutched, Dual Absolute Encoders.

However, I'm not sure what "low tracking performance" in combination with "dual absolute encoders" would even mean? Like... the mount knows it's wrong but doesn't know how to fix it?


Re: How to Take Best Advantage of Partial APPM Model Runs #APCC

Eric Weiner
 

Greg,

It’s there. Just look under the beta downloads, not the main V4 links. Bottom of the downloads page. 

Cheers,
Eric


On Feb 26, 2021, at 20:50, Greg Vaughn <gregvaughn@...> wrote:

Hi Luca,

I went to download the BETA 4 version of SGP and it shows that only the 32 bit version is currently available for download.

Is there something that you needed to sign up for that allowed you to download the V4.657 Beta version of SGP?   I had to acknowledge the risks of the Beta software to download it, but I didn't realize that the only one I could download was the 32-bit version of the Beta (with a much lower version number than what you've quoted).   I'm curious I'm missing something in this process.

Appreciate any advice.

cheers,
Greg


Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

weihaowang
 
Edited

Low to ultra-low weight and compact (if these imply no-clutched, I will accept), for air travel and for elder people.

Single encoder to eliminate PE and need of guiding for sub-500mm imaging.

medium or higher price (but what "medium" means?)

Cheers,
Wei-Hao



On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 06:01 AM, Roland Christen wrote:
I guess if you need just an imaging mount with no clutches (no way to use manually without power), it can be very small and light weight.
A universal mount like the Mach2 or 10-Micron has more components than a non-clutched mount like the MYT or Rainbow mounts.
A non-clutched mount without encoders would be slightly less weight, and less cost, but will always require aggressive guiding.
A non-clutched mount with just an RA encoder to eliminate the periodic error would be medium cost and light weight.
 
There are a lot of permutations and possibilities, and it would depend on what you want to do with this mount. Some people just want a light weight mount that they can haul out from the basement to the driveway, put a scope on it, put an eyepiece on it and do a Moon Cruise or examine the planets. They don't need encoders or PE correction. Others want one as small as possible for airline travel and may or may not want to guide. Others want a precision universal mount that they can do anything with, but must have low weight because their back hurts. The possibilities are endless.
 
Low cost, medium or high cost. Medium weight low weight or ultra-low weight. Low tracking performance, medium or ultra-high performance. Clutched or non-clutched - universal or targeted. Single encoder or dual absolute encoders.
 
Pick any 3 out of 5.
 
Rolando

 


Re: How to Take Best Advantage of Partial APPM Model Runs #APCC

Greg Vaughn
 

Hi Luca,

I went to download the BETA 4 version of SGP and it shows that only the 32 bit version is currently available for download.

Is there something that you needed to sign up for that allowed you to download the V4.657 Beta version of SGP?   I had to acknowledge the risks of the Beta software to download it, but I didn't realize that the only one I could download was the 32-bit version of the Beta (with a much lower version number than what you've quoted).   I'm curious I'm missing something in this process.

Appreciate any advice.

cheers,
Greg


Re: How to Take Best Advantage of Partial APPM Model Runs #APCC

Greg Vaughn
 

Hi Brian,

 

Thanks for making me double check APPM settings.   I have selected ‘Binning = 2’ under the APPM ‘Camera Settings’ tab and I know that in the settings summary page you get when you hit run that my image scale is double the value I record in the ‘Plate Solve Settings’ tab of APPM which asks for the unbinned image scale for X and Y.   So, I think these settings in APPM mean that APCC has registered them.  

 

I just now see the opportunity to select Full Frame or ½ by ½ or ¼ by ¼ in the ‘Subframe’ drop-down menu in the ‘Camera Settings’ tab.   I have always left in ‘Full Frame’ in the past.   Now that I’m aware of the choice there and If I continue to have issues, I will certainly try that – thanks!

 

Cheers,

Greg

 


Virus-free. www.avast.com


Re: Pay Attention to Those Declination Top Plate Locking Knobs

 

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 02:40 PM, Joe Zeglinski wrote:
Hi Mike,
 
   Nice job on your pencilled setting circles.  I was thinking the same thing about perhaps AP providing “stick-on-tape” setting circles as visual aids for their mounts, as an option. That would save production work and materials & stocking for the old fashioned types. However, I suppose the pencil (or inked) marked ones can easily wash off or smudge, after all that hard work.
 
    Easy to make permanent ones – just measure and test print such setting angle strips  first, on paper. Later , when they seem to be correct with their ends taped/joined, plastic ones could then be printed with a laser printer,  onto “overhead projection cell” material, as a clear acetate glue-on. You might have to print on the sheet’s diagonal, depending on axle cap diameter, to fit – or even as two pieces, 180 degree strips. I would first “reverse” the printing image, so that once it is printed (mirror imaged) and flipped over, the lettering would be on the back side of the strip, protected from dew etc.
 
    Might even glue the printed strips onto “Glow in the dark”  tape, before applying that tape to the axle. That way, it will be easier to read the angles with the glow backlighting effect,  even without a permanent battery operated LED indicator bulb. But don’t forget to account for the tape’s thickness, adding to the diameter, when measuring the printed setting circle  strips.
 
Joe Z.
 
 
I used that exact technique to make various labels and scales for equipment I made or used at work. Thought I was the only one. :)  Solve the various angles and lengths of the label with a CAD program and many tests, since most printers aren't as accurate as I expected.  Mirror them in the program, laser print on overhead projector acetate sheets (wonder if they're still around), cut out, flip and attach using double-sided tape with the toner safely underneath.  Worked great.

Jerome


Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

Bill Long
 

https://ap-gto.groups.io/g/main/wiki/14360

The groups.io Wiki is useful. For those that might not know it exists. 😁


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Shailesh Trivedi <strivedi@...>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 6:09 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN
 
Roland,

Please point me to your simple polar alignment method. 

Shailesh


Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

Shailesh Trivedi
 

Roland,

Please point me to your simple polar alignment method. 

Shailesh


Re: GTOCP4 Control Box

Tom Blahovici
 

oops, the base is 3 feet in diameter.  The pier is from Software Bisque and is 10" in diameter.  It bolts to 4 stainless steel rods embedded in the concrete. In the summer I take the whole things down, replace the small hole with an upside down bucket covered in astroturf.  Can hardly see it at all.


Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

Roland Christen
 

Pointing model comes automatic with APCC-APPM. It's not mount specific.

Polar alignment is so simple, almost anyone can do it with eyes closed if you use my method. It's also fast and quite accurate. I will probably turn it into an automatic keypad routine at some point. All you need is a scope and camera with crosshairs on the image - Maxim DL has this.

Not sure what user focused means.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: alan.dang@...
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Fri, Feb 26, 2021 6:14 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

What can AP do that others cannot?
1. reliability/customer service
2. sophisticated pointing model
3. sophisticated polar alignment
4. user/focused (understands needs of users).

So in terms of picking 3 out of the 5.

1) Tracking performance should be good enough to make having an advanced pointing model worthwhile.  If the tracking performance is bad enough that a mount set at sidereal will give you the same result, it’s not taking advantage of the performance.

It is not clear to me how much guiding solves this.  My understanding is that a good model avoids the need for guiding.  
It is not clear to me how much clutches affect this target of performance.

it is not clear to me if corrections in DEC are needed after an AP model is created or if it’s just RA modifications.
I don’t know what pixel size to assume but I think 3-4 microns is a reasonable assumption.

2) You have hit it spot on that there are older hobbyists who would do better with lightweight mounts and there are plenty of young hobbyists who like to travel.

3) Make it as affordable as possible.  The Stowaway lets a lot more people enjoy your optics.  
Let’s call this the “AP Traveler GTO”.

4) if it is spec’d to meet the criteria of “good enough to benefit from a pointing model” versus just tracking with the 92/6.65 versus the 130GTX, how does that change the price and size?

Maybe for the 92/6.65 “good enough to benefit from a pointing model” it would still be “very good” with the overloaded 130GTX or C11.


--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

Roland Christen
 

Rough estimate ~ $15k.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Erickson <christopher.k.erickson@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Fri, Feb 26, 2021 5:37 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

High precision abs encoder on RA. For precise homing, pointing and tracking.
Lower resolution abs encoder on DEC. Much cheaper and perfectly suitable for precise homing and pointing.
Servo motors. For lowest voltage and current requirements.
Operable on 8-20VDC.
Strain wave gears with electric brakes. For zero backlash, no reverse-driving when power is lost, and size/weight savings.
Super-lightweight and compact overall.
No clutches needed. I haven't missed having clutches on my RST-135 at all.
Motor-current-measuring-based balancing function.
New, dedicated hand controller with integral GPS & Bluetooth, and optionally WiFi, serial, USB and Ethernet.
Maybe have an XBee socket or two in the hand controller. Let users pick their own wireless frequency and protocol options.
Mount setup procedure optimized and simplified for travel. OLED display good to -40F/C
Built-in base adapter to put it on a carbon-fiber Gitzo 85 (or clone 85mm head) tripod.
Optional hollow composite counterweight. Fill with water when in the field.
Lightweight counterweight shaft. I am a strong believer in counterweights for strain wave mounts, whenever possible. I don't care what Rainbow pushes in their ads.
Lightweight, telescoping, two-section, aluminum pier with 85mm socket head option for travel. More rigid than a Gitzo CF tripod.
Ability to operate in Alt-Az as well as polar mode. Alt-Az is great for visual, solar and occultation use.
Options for both electronic as well as optical polar scopes.
Give the electronics enough horsepower to add cool stuff in the future, like Slo-Mo all-sky tracker features and the like.
Bubble levels in mount and pier. Optional compass.
Multi-star alignments with software ortho compensation.
Voltage and current displayed continuously on the hand controller.
If possible, through the mount power and USB3/USB-C. Or put cable securing points on the DEC axis and base so a springy umbilical channel can be used.
Optional custom, lightweight, wheelie travel case. Maybe have a stroller or diaper bag camouflage kit for it. LOL

"My advice is always free and worth every penny!"

-Christopher Erickson
Observatory Engineer
Summit Kinetics
Waikoloa, Hawaii


On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:01 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I guess if you need just an imaging mount with no clutches (no way to use manually without power), it can be very small and light weight.
A universal mount like the Mach2 or 10-Micron has more components than a non-clutched mount like the MYT or Rainbow mounts.
A non-clutched mount without encoders would be slightly less weight, and less cost, but will always require aggressive guiding.
A non-clutched mount with just an RA encoder to eliminate the periodic error would be medium cost and light weight.

There are a lot of permutations and possibilities, and it would depend on what you want to do with this mount. Some people just want a light weight mount that they can haul out from the basement to the driveway, put a scope on it, put an eyepiece on it and do a Moon Cruise or examine the planets. They don't need encoders or PE correction. Others want one as small as possible for airline travel and may or may not want to guide. Others want a precision universal mount that they can do anything with, but must have low weight because their back hurts. The possibilities are endless.

Low cost, medium or high cost. Medium weight low weight or ultra-low weight. Low tracking performance, medium or ultra-high performance. Clutched or non-clutched - universal or targeted. Single encoder or dual absolute encoders.

Pick any 3 out of 5.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: alan.dang@...
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Fri, Feb 26, 2021 2:46 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

And not just older people, but young enthusiasts who just want a lighter no-fuss mount that more easily travels when going on a group road trip where you have limited space for the Astro gear along with clothes and other travel essentials.

A real question is what is the smallest mount that would work with a AP105 and have encoders?  You might not save production cost over a mount that handles a C11 or AP130EDT — but if the mount is dramatically smaller or lighter, it could be interesting.

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

Bill Long
 

Good point. Single RA encoder would be enough. Price would certainly come down that way. 


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 4:31 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN
 
Do you need a Dec encoder for what? Remember, Dec doesn't have to track.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Long <bill@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Sent: Fri, Feb 26, 2021 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

Low weight, medium cost, dual absolute encoders.  🙂 


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 2:01 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN
 
I guess if you need just an imaging mount with no clutches (no way to use manually without power), it can be very small and light weight.
A universal mount like the Mach2 or 10-Micron has more components than a non-clutched mount like the MYT or Rainbow mounts.
A non-clutched mount without encoders would be slightly less weight, and less cost, but will always require aggressive guiding.
A non-clutched mount with just an RA encoder to eliminate the periodic error would be medium cost and light weight.

There are a lot of permutations and possibilities, and it would depend on what you want to do with this mount. Some people just want a light weight mount that they can haul out from the basement to the driveway, put a scope on it, put an eyepiece on it and do a Moon Cruise or examine the planets. They don't need encoders or PE correction. Others want one as small as possible for airline travel and may or may not want to guide. Others want a precision universal mount that they can do anything with, but must have low weight because their back hurts. The possibilities are endless.

Low cost, medium or high cost. Medium weight low weight or ultra-low weight. Low tracking performance, medium or ultra-high performance. Clutched or non-clutched - universal or targeted. Single encoder or dual absolute encoders.

Pick any 3 out of 5.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: alan.dang@...
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Fri, Feb 26, 2021 2:46 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

And not just older people, but young enthusiasts who just want a lighter no-fuss mount that more easily travels when going on a group road trip where you have limited space for the Astro gear along with clothes and other travel essentials.

A real question is what is the smallest mount that would work with a AP105 and have encoders?  You might not save production cost over a mount that handles a C11 or AP130EDT — but if the mount is dramatically smaller or lighter, it could be interesting.

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

Roland Christen
 

Do you need a Dec encoder for what? Remember, Dec doesn't have to track.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Long <bill@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Sent: Fri, Feb 26, 2021 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

Low weight, medium cost, dual absolute encoders.  🙂 


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 2:01 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN
 
I guess if you need just an imaging mount with no clutches (no way to use manually without power), it can be very small and light weight.
A universal mount like the Mach2 or 10-Micron has more components than a non-clutched mount like the MYT or Rainbow mounts.
A non-clutched mount without encoders would be slightly less weight, and less cost, but will always require aggressive guiding.
A non-clutched mount with just an RA encoder to eliminate the periodic error would be medium cost and light weight.

There are a lot of permutations and possibilities, and it would depend on what you want to do with this mount. Some people just want a light weight mount that they can haul out from the basement to the driveway, put a scope on it, put an eyepiece on it and do a Moon Cruise or examine the planets. They don't need encoders or PE correction. Others want one as small as possible for airline travel and may or may not want to guide. Others want a precision universal mount that they can do anything with, but must have low weight because their back hurts. The possibilities are endless.

Low cost, medium or high cost. Medium weight low weight or ultra-low weight. Low tracking performance, medium or ultra-high performance. Clutched or non-clutched - universal or targeted. Single encoder or dual absolute encoders.

Pick any 3 out of 5.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: alan.dang@...
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Fri, Feb 26, 2021 2:46 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

And not just older people, but young enthusiasts who just want a lighter no-fuss mount that more easily travels when going on a group road trip where you have limited space for the Astro gear along with clothes and other travel essentials.

A real question is what is the smallest mount that would work with a AP105 and have encoders?  You might not save production cost over a mount that handles a C11 or AP130EDT — but if the mount is dramatically smaller or lighter, it could be interesting.

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

Roland Christen
 

Ok, no problem for those 3.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: DFisch <manusfisch@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Sent: Fri, Feb 26, 2021 4:06 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

1, low weight
2, Knows where it is at all times
3 High accuracy on both axes

TJF Mobile
please excuse grammar and spell errors

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011@...>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 5:01:46 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN
 
I guess if you need just an imaging mount with no clutches (no way to use manually without power), it can be very small and light weight.
A universal mount like the Mach2 or 10-Micron has more components than a non-clutched mount like the MYT or Rainbow mounts.
A non-clutched mount without encoders would be slightly less weight, and less cost, but will always require aggressive guiding.
A non-clutched mount with just an RA encoder to eliminate the periodic error would be medium cost and light weight.

There are a lot of permutations and possibilities, and it would depend on what you want to do with this mount. Some people just want a light weight mount that they can haul out from the basement to the driveway, put a scope on it, put an eyepiece on it and do a Moon Cruise or examine the planets. They don't need encoders or PE correction. Others want one as small as possible for airline travel and may or may not want to guide. Others want a precision universal mount that they can do anything with, but must have low weight because their back hurts. The possibilities are endless.

Low cost, medium or high cost. Medium weight low weight or ultra-low weight. Low tracking performance, medium or ultra-high performance. Clutched or non-clutched - universal or targeted. Single encoder or dual absolute encoders.

Pick any 3 out of 5.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: alan.dang@...
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Fri, Feb 26, 2021 2:46 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

And not just older people, but young enthusiasts who just want a lighter no-fuss mount that more easily travels when going on a group road trip where you have limited space for the Astro gear along with clothes and other travel essentials.

A real question is what is the smallest mount that would work with a AP105 and have encoders?  You might not save production cost over a mount that handles a C11 or AP130EDT — but if the mount is dramatically smaller or lighter, it could be interesting.

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

dvjbaja
 

But sadly, as soon as a notification list opens. Every ap fan boy has to get on it.  Production fills, and those who could really use it are waiting years.  Make no mistake, I'm a fan boy.   By the time the mount arrives,, my 80 year old eyes won't be able to see M13 through a telescope.  (I was on the mak 10 list 20 years)  :-)
J



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note9, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: alan.dang@...
Date: 2/26/21 4:14 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

What can AP do that others cannot?
1. reliability/customer service
2. sophisticated pointing model
3. sophisticated polar alignment
4. user/focused (understands needs of users).

So in terms of picking 3 out of the 5.

1) Tracking performance should be good enough to make having an advanced pointing model worthwhile.  If the tracking performance is bad enough that a mount set at sidereal will give you the same result, it’s not taking advantage of the performance.

It is not clear to me how much guiding solves this.  My understanding is that a good model avoids the need for guiding.  

It is not clear to me how much clutches affect this target of performance.

it is not clear to me if corrections in DEC are needed after an AP model is created or if it’s just RA modifications.

I don’t know what pixel size to assume but I think 3-4 microns is a reasonable assumption.

2) You have hit it spot on that there are older hobbyists who would do better with lightweight mounts and there are plenty of young hobbyists who like to travel.

3) Make it as affordable as possible.  The Stowaway lets a lot more people enjoy your optics.  

Let’s call this the “AP Traveler GTO”.

4) if it is spec’d to meet the criteria of “good enough to benefit from a pointing model” versus just tracking with the 92/6.65 versus the 130GTX, how does that change the price and size?

Maybe for the 92/6.65 “good enough to benefit from a pointing model” it would still be “very good” with the overloaded 130GTX or C11.


Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

Bill Long
 

Whatever it is, speculating about this hypothetical mount has been pretty fun. Putting it on something like a Rob Miller tri36L (8lb tripod) with a e160 or the GTX at a nice remote dark site sounds like a dream team combo.


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of alan.dang@... <alan.dang@...>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 4:14 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN
 

[Edited Message Follows]

What can AP do that others cannot?
1. reliability/customer service
2. sophisticated pointing and tracking model
3. sophisticated polar alignment
4. user focused (understands needs of users).

So in terms of picking 3 out of the 5.

1) Tracking performance should be good enough to make having an advanced sky model worthwhile.  If the tracking performance is bad enough that a mount set at sidereal will give you the same result, it’s not taking advantage of the performance.

It is not clear to me how much guiding solves this.  My understanding is that a good model avoids the need for guiding.  

It is not clear to me how much clutches affect this target of performance.

it is not clear to me if corrections in DEC are needed after an AP model is created or if it’s just RA modifications.

I don’t know what pixel size to assume but I think 3-4 microns is a reasonable assumption.

2) You have hit it spot on that there are older hobbyists who would do better with lightweight mounts and there are plenty of young hobbyists who like to travel.

3) Make it as affordable as possible.  The Stowaway lets a lot more people enjoy your optics.  

Let’s call this the “AP Traveler GTO”.

4) if it is spec’d to meet the criteria of “good enough to benefit from a sky model” versus just tracking with the 92/6.65 versus the 130GTX, how does that change the price and size?

Maybe for the 92/6.65 “good enough to benefit from a sky model” it would still be “very good” with the overloaded 130GTX or C11 but not show the same benefits.


Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

alan.dang@...
 
Edited

What can AP do that others cannot?
1. reliability/customer service
2. sophisticated pointing and tracking model
3. sophisticated polar alignment
4. user focused (understands needs of users).

So in terms of picking 3 out of the 5.

1) Tracking performance should be good enough to make having an advanced sky model worthwhile.  If the tracking performance is bad enough that a mount set at sidereal will give you the same result, it’s not taking advantage of the performance.

It is not clear to me how much guiding solves this.  My understanding is that a good model avoids the need for guiding.  

It is not clear to me how much clutches affect this target of performance.

it is not clear to me if corrections in DEC are needed after an AP model is created or if it’s just RA modifications.

I don’t know what pixel size to assume but I think 3-4 microns is a reasonable assumption.

2) You have hit it spot on that there are older hobbyists who would do better with lightweight mounts and there are plenty of young hobbyists who like to travel.

3) Make it as affordable as possible.  The Stowaway lets a lot more people enjoy your optics.  

Let’s call this the “AP Traveler GTO”.

4) if it is spec’d to meet the criteria of “good enough to benefit from a sky model” versus just tracking with the 92/6.65 versus the 130GTX, how does that change the price and size?

Maybe for the 92/6.65 “good enough to benefit from a sky model” it would still be “very good” with the overloaded 130GTX or C11 but not show the same benefits.


Re: Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

Christopher Erickson
 

High precision abs encoder on RA. For precise homing, pointing and tracking.
Lower resolution abs encoder on DEC. Much cheaper and perfectly suitable for precise homing and pointing.
Servo motors. For lowest voltage and current requirements.
Operable on 8-20VDC.
Strain wave gears with electric brakes. For zero backlash, no reverse-driving when power is lost, and size/weight savings.
Super-lightweight and compact overall.
No clutches needed. I haven't missed having clutches on my RST-135 at all.
Motor-current-measuring-based balancing function.
New, dedicated hand controller with integral GPS & Bluetooth, and optionally WiFi, serial, USB and Ethernet.
Maybe have an XBee socket or two in the hand controller. Let users pick their own wireless frequency and protocol options.
Mount setup procedure optimized and simplified for travel. OLED display good to -40F/C
Built-in base adapter to put it on a carbon-fiber Gitzo 85 (or clone 85mm head) tripod.
Optional hollow composite counterweight. Fill with water when in the field.
Lightweight counterweight shaft. I am a strong believer in counterweights for strain wave mounts, whenever possible. I don't care what Rainbow pushes in their ads.
Lightweight, telescoping, two-section, aluminum pier with 85mm socket head option for travel. More rigid than a Gitzo CF tripod.
Ability to operate in Alt-Az as well as polar mode. Alt-Az is great for visual, solar and occultation use.
Options for both electronic as well as optical polar scopes.
Give the electronics enough horsepower to add cool stuff in the future, like Slo-Mo all-sky tracker features and the like.
Bubble levels in mount and pier. Optional compass.
Multi-star alignments with software ortho compensation.
Voltage and current displayed continuously on the hand controller.
If possible, through the mount power and USB3/USB-C. Or put cable securing points on the DEC axis and base so a springy umbilical channel can be used.
Optional custom, lightweight, wheelie travel case. Maybe have a stroller or diaper bag camouflage kit for it. LOL

"My advice is always free and worth every penny!"

-Christopher Erickson
Observatory Engineer
Summit Kinetics
Waikoloa, Hawaii


On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:01 PM Roland Christen via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I guess if you need just an imaging mount with no clutches (no way to use manually without power), it can be very small and light weight.
A universal mount like the Mach2 or 10-Micron has more components than a non-clutched mount like the MYT or Rainbow mounts.
A non-clutched mount without encoders would be slightly less weight, and less cost, but will always require aggressive guiding.
A non-clutched mount with just an RA encoder to eliminate the periodic error would be medium cost and light weight.

There are a lot of permutations and possibilities, and it would depend on what you want to do with this mount. Some people just want a light weight mount that they can haul out from the basement to the driveway, put a scope on it, put an eyepiece on it and do a Moon Cruise or examine the planets. They don't need encoders or PE correction. Others want one as small as possible for airline travel and may or may not want to guide. Others want a precision universal mount that they can do anything with, but must have low weight because their back hurts. The possibilities are endless.

Low cost, medium or high cost. Medium weight low weight or ultra-low weight. Low tracking performance, medium or ultra-high performance. Clutched or non-clutched - universal or targeted. Single encoder or dual absolute encoders.

Pick any 3 out of 5.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: alan.dang@...
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Fri, Feb 26, 2021 2:46 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small mount was Recent encoder discussion on CN

And not just older people, but young enthusiasts who just want a lighter no-fuss mount that more easily travels when going on a group road trip where you have limited space for the Astro gear along with clothes and other travel essentials.

A real question is what is the smallest mount that would work with a AP105 and have encoders?  You might not save production cost over a mount that handles a C11 or AP130EDT — but if the mount is dramatically smaller or lighter, it could be interesting.

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics


Re: How to Take Best Advantage of Partial APPM Model Runs #APCC

 

Greg there's an option in APPM under Camera to use a subframe. for that giant 6200 i suggest trying the 1/4 by 1/4 center frame option. it's still a pretty big file even at that size

I don't know how much APPM pays attention to any of your SGP camera settings re: plate solving etc. Ray would be the guy for that. 



On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 3:07 PM Greg Vaughn <gregvaughn@...> wrote:
Thanks, Brian and Luca;

I actually bin 2x2 for platesolving, but recognize they are still big files.   I haven't had any issue with the QHY 600, but the ZWO 6200 MM seems a little more temperamental.

I saw that there is a Beta version for SGP available and was hoping it would be a regular release before I used it - but a 64bit version sounds like it may help.   I had some frames dropped while imaging 1x1 (1 out of 4) with the new image train and hopefully that will stop with the Beta version.

Cheers,
Greg



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: How to Take Best Advantage of Partial APPM Model Runs #APCC

Greg Vaughn
 

Thanks, Brian and Luca;

I actually bin 2x2 for platesolving, but recognize they are still big files.   I haven't had any issue with the QHY 600, but the ZWO 6200 MM seems a little more temperamental.

I saw that there is a Beta version for SGP available and was hoping it would be a regular release before I used it - but a 64bit version sounds like it may help.   I had some frames dropped while imaging 1x1 (1 out of 4) with the new image train and hopefully that will stop with the Beta version.

Cheers,
Greg

6681 - 6700 of 83217