Date   

Re: Pier for 1100GTO #Guiding

Stone, Jack G
 

What do you guys think about the Le Sueur pier?

It’s designed to accommodate many of the adapters for various mounts.

Not sure, but I’ve seen many for sale on CN and AM

 

Jack ~

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of Robert Berta
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 12:50 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Pier for 1100GTO #Guiding

 

If you bury the tube in the concrete you are locked in to the orientation and any shift over time. This can be a big issue if you have climate that is in the snow belt like me. It is far better to pour a concrete base and have bolts imbedded that will allow connection to the pier base. That way you can adjust for orientation (using slotted holes) and getting the pier top level by adjusting the nuts on the bolts on each side of the pier bottom plate.  One person in this topic mentioned burying his tube 24" deep. That won't work if you are in the snow belt....it needs to be burred deeper.  If in the snow belt I would check with city or contractors about how deep it should go to ensure it won't move around as the soil shifts.

By the way, another advantage of the bolt down method above is that you can remove the pier for maintenance, replace in the future, etc. Make sure you have it sufficiently high enough. If you change out your mount in the future you may need to get a different height pier. I went from a AP900 mount to a AP1100 mount....on the same pier the 1100 puts the telescope higher up from the floor. I use both a 11" SCT as well as a 152mm APO refractor so my design had to be at a height that could accommodate both telescope types


Re: Pier for 1100GTO #Guiding

Robert Berta
 

If you bury the tube in the concrete you are locked in to the orientation and any shift over time. This can be a big issue if you have climate that is in the snow belt like me. It is far better to pour a concrete base and have bolts imbedded that will allow connection to the pier base. That way you can adjust for orientation (using slotted holes) and getting the pier top level by adjusting the nuts on the bolts on each side of the pier bottom plate.  One person in this topic mentioned burying his tube 24" deep. That won't work if you are in the snow belt....it needs to be burred deeper.  If in the snow belt I would check with city or contractors about how deep it should go to ensure it won't move around as the soil shifts.

By the way, another advantage of the bolt down method above is that you can remove the pier for maintenance, replace in the future, etc. Make sure you have it sufficiently high enough. If you change out your mount in the future you may need to get a different height pier. I went from a AP900 mount to a AP1100 mount....on the same pier the 1100 puts the telescope higher up from the floor. I use both a 11" SCT as well as a 152mm APO refractor so my design had to be at a height that could accommodate both telescope types


Re: Pier for 1100GTO #Guiding

Keith Olsen
 
Edited

If you really want a heavy duty pier get a schedule 80 pipe and have a plate welded on top and bottom.   Mine is 5" nominal(5 1/2" OD) 3/8" thickness and about 21 lbs per foot for my OBS with my Mach1. I bolted the Losmandy field tripod adapter to the top plate with the astro-physics LT2APM adapter attached to that. I will be getting an 1100GTO and will install it on the same pier.  

5 1/2" OD seems small but this thing is solid and heavy. My wife owns a steel business and made mine, she looked today and it is going for $24 a foot  here in Illinois but the price has been varying a lot lately.


Re: Mach2 transport case?

Kenneth Tan
 

Nope. It is much larger. Won’t fit the pelican 1610.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 at 00:51, Kevin Cook <kvc3509@...> wrote:
Jeff - My solution will deviate a bit from what others have suggested.  It very much depends on your intended use.  I originally kept my Mach 1 head in a Pelican 1610 rolling case because I needed the rolling features for star parties and I wanted to keep more of the associated parts (hand controller, etc.) in a single case.  Then there came a time when lifting that heavy Pelican case in and out of the SUV became a headache (or technically a backache).  So my current solution is lighter, and might be the smallest hard case that fits the Mach 1 head plus the counterweight shaft - the Nanuk 940.  Significantly lighter and smaller than the Pelican 1610.  I pad the few open spaces with air bags and heavy-duty bubble wrap.  I have found that my back is much happier with multiple smaller cases than one big heavy case.  Remembering to bring the multiple smaller cases is not too hard, as I keep them all stacked on top of each other.

Npte that I am assuming the Mach 2 is essentially the same dimensions as the Mach 1, and that I would also use a Pelican case like the 1610 if the mount were traveling via airline checked baggage.


Re: Pier for 1100GTO #Guiding

Donald Gaines
 

Hi Mike,
I was thinking sand at first, but concrete may be a better idea. What are your thoughts on it?  
Don


On Friday, March 19, 2021, M Hambrick <mhambrick563@...> wrote:
Hi Don

That sounds like a good design. Are you also planning to fill the pier with concrete or sand when you bury it in the ground ?

The advantage to a plain pier is that it will allow you a little more range of movement without having to worry about pier crashes. The one downside to the A-P portable pier is that the trusses interfere with pointing to the meridian at some declinations.

Mike


Re: Pier for 1100GTO #Guiding

M Hambrick
 

Hi Don

That sounds like a good design. Are you also planning to fill the pier with concrete or sand when you bury it in the ground ?

The advantage to a plain pier is that it will allow you a little more range of movement without having to worry about pier crashes. The one downside to the A-P portable pier is that the trusses interfere with pointing to the meridian at some declinations.

Mike


Re: Mach2 transport case?

Bill Long
 

I picked up the Pelican Case referenced in the manual for the Mach 2 but its still in the box and is on my weekend project list to get configured. Have others done this? What modifications were needed to the shipping foam to get it to work? 


Re: Pier for 1100GTO #Guiding

Donald Gaines
 

Hi,
I’m new to the group but it looks like I’m going to be getting an 1100GTO as well.
 
I am familiar with Astro-Physics piers and I think they are extremely well made, very solid, and work extremely well. I want to put my 1100 in a ROR observatory and really would like something that functions like the AP pier, without the legs.
 
My solution is to by an 8 in OD 7.75 ID aluminum tube 6 ft long cost $220 from a local supplier. This has the same diameter and wall thickness, 1/8 inch, as the tubing AP uses for their piers. I had an old AP Flat Pier Plate to which I took a reciprocating saw and removed the ring on the bottom of the plate, which fits inside the pier tube. This ring is 1/2 inch thick and it took about an hour to cut it off.  It is a snug fit inside the pipe, but I will attach it with 6 screws for which it is already drilled and tapped, and place it 3/4 in below the top of the pier. I will drill another 6 holes to attach the 1100 which will sit on the ring. This will give fit and function similar to the AP pier.  Since it is 6 ft long it will allow 24 in to be buried, with 48 in above ground.

Good luck, I can't wait to get the mount, AP really builds extremely high quality equipment. 

Don Gaines
 




On Friday, March 19, 2021, Steve C. Mitchell, Sr., O.D. <smitchell@...> wrote:

You’ve been given some good points to consider already. But don’t forget about your wall/pier heights ratio. You don’t want your pier to be to short or you’ll lose those sometimes low objects you might want to capture cause you can’t see over the wall. I actually made an adapter to make the mount higher for my existing 12” pier, I had made for my previous “other brand” mount that was of no comparison to my AP1100, so that when parked my new setup clears the rolling roof with about 5” to spare. A little scary the first few times you open or close the roof when the rafters go passing by, but actually a good distance for safety once you get used to it and “know” it’s not going to hit your camera or telrad or whatever sticks up. I can see all the sky I can see at my location with this height.

 

Steve

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of dbrannan0523@...
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:05 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] Pier for 1100GTO #Guiding

 

I have an 1100GTO mount on order and plan to house it in an observatory on permanent pier with imaging in mind.   I own an old AP 8" diameter portable pier.  Would anchoring this in concrete and filling the tube with sand be sufficiently stable or is there clear benefit in purchasing a heavier thicker permanent pier for best performance.  Any thoughts?


Re: Mach2 transport case?

Kevin Cook
 

Jeff - My solution will deviate a bit from what others have suggested.  It very much depends on your intended use.  I originally kept my Mach 1 head in a Pelican 1610 rolling case because I needed the rolling features for star parties and I wanted to keep more of the associated parts (hand controller, etc.) in a single case.  Then there came a time when lifting that heavy Pelican case in and out of the SUV became a headache (or technically a backache).  So my current solution is lighter, and might be the smallest hard case that fits the Mach 1 head plus the counterweight shaft - the Nanuk 940.  Significantly lighter and smaller than the Pelican 1610.  I pad the few open spaces with air bags and heavy-duty bubble wrap.  I have found that my back is much happier with multiple smaller cases than one big heavy case.  Remembering to bring the multiple smaller cases is not too hard, as I keep them all stacked on top of each other.

Npte that I am assuming the Mach 2 is essentially the same dimensions as the Mach 1, and that I would also use a Pelican case like the 1610 if the mount were traveling via airline checked baggage.


Re: APCC model like Mach2

Ray Gralak
 

Scott,

The minimum is two rows of Declination arcs encompassing a target's declination, at least 6 points in each row. More points and more declination arcs near the target's declination will produce higher accuracy. If you are well polar aligned this should only take 5 minutes, maybe less.

BTW, APCC is already setup to do declination arcs by default, so it's pretty easy to define a declination arc range.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of skester@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 8:39 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APCC model like Mach2

Thanks Ray, one more question. By 'hybrid model' I take it APCC needs both a full-sky model, and the Dec Arc
model for the given target Dec. In my use case I would need to build the full-sky model each night since I travel to
image. I don't really need pointing accuracy since I plate solve to the target. What would be the minimum number
of points required in the full-sky model to enable the Dec Arc Tracking functionality?

Thanks,
Scott


Re: APCC model like Mach2

skester@...
 

Thanks Ray, one more question.  By 'hybrid model' I take it APCC needs both a full-sky model, and the Dec Arc model for the given target Dec.  In my use case I would need to build the full-sky model each night since I travel to image.  I don't really need pointing accuracy since I plate solve to the target.  What would be the minimum number of points required in the full-sky model to enable the Dec Arc Tracking functionality?

Thanks,
Scott


Re: Mach2 transport case?

Greg McCall
 

I have previously used pelican cases for mounts but space in my car just was too tight (even with a Toyota Prado which is a large SUV diesel in Australia).
I have the OTA with image train intact (camera/filter wheel etc) so that flats remain valid.
Protecting the OTA and image train is much more important. 
I save space by wrapping mount (and tripod) in their own beach towels with straps to hold towels in place. The mount is more robust than you might imagine.


Re: Mach2 transport case?

Andrea Lucchetti
 

I am using a Maxcase MAX 540H245.

It is an air tight case, Pelican style.
but I don't fit the saddle, you can try but it would be just enough.(it depends on your latitude)
they have a bigger one (640mm) but too big for my car and my back.

Andrea


Re: Mach2 transport case?

Sébastien Doré
 

You might want to take a look at mycasebuilder.com to « virtually try » several case brands/models.

They have a tool allowing you to custom design foam inserts based on your own pictures of equipment so you can figure out easily how whatever you plan to store in the selected model will fit or not.

Clear skies,
Sébastien


Re: APCC model like Mach2

Ray Gralak
 

Am I correct that this feature is the same functionality Roland used via the keypad on the Mach2 to build a model
only along the path of the target to be imaged? If so that sounds like a big win for mobile imagers like myself.
The implementations are independent of each other, but the concept is similar. APCC's Declination Arc Tracking is an idea I first had over 15 years ago. The feature does not use the typical model that you would find in TPoint or other premium mounts. It uses hybrid modeling: pointing correction is handled with a full-sky model, but tracking rate correction is dealt with via a different mathematical model that is optimized for localized tracking accuracy. The tracking rate modeling accounts for mechanical terms that the full-sky pointing model does not and thus produces higher tracking rate accuracy than a full-sky model.

-Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of skester@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:07 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APCC model like Mach2

Am I correct that this feature is the same functionality Roland used via the keypad on the Mach2 to build a model
only along the path of the target to be imaged? If so that sounds like a big win for mobile imagers like myself.


Re: Slide Rules and Slipsticks - in the 1960's B.C. - i.e. (Before Computers)

Don Anderson
 

Oh the memories! Post a pic of the Dietzn.

Don Anderson


On Thursday, March 18, 2021, 12:27:51 p.m. MDT, weems@... <weems@...> wrote:


Through most of middle and high school I used a circular slide rule. In senior year I used money from my grocery store job to buy an HP45. When I got to engineering school, one professor insisted that pocket calculators were a fad, that circular rules were not good enough, and that I had to buy a straight rule. The local engineering supply had, for a while, taken top-quality rules in trade for calculators. So I was able to pick up a used Dietzgen 1734, with a mahogany core and teflon bearings, very cheaply. I still use it in my CS classes, as an example of 0th generation computing technology. It is still in its orange box and leather holster, with the manual wrapped around it. 

Early computers I've used and/or programmed include: IBM 360/20, 360/40, 1130, 1620, PDP 8/L, 8/E, 8/I, 12, VAX 11/780, CDC 3300, Cyber 74, Cyber 180. Also a research machine using a glass delay line associative memory in combination with surplus core memory units from the IBM 7030 (I still have some of the core planes, drivers, and manuals). The 3300 had the coolest console of any of them, with rows of projected octal digits. The research machine had the weirdest instruction (skip on sunny Sundays). 

Chip


Re: Pier for 1100GTO #Guiding

Steve C. Mitchell, Sr., O.D.
 

You’ve been given some good points to consider already. But don’t forget about your wall/pier heights ratio. You don’t want your pier to be to short or you’ll lose those sometimes low objects you might want to capture cause you can’t see over the wall. I actually made an adapter to make the mount higher for my existing 12” pier, I had made for my previous “other brand” mount that was of no comparison to my AP1100, so that when parked my new setup clears the rolling roof with about 5” to spare. A little scary the first few times you open or close the roof when the rafters go passing by, but actually a good distance for safety once you get used to it and “know” it’s not going to hit your camera or telrad or whatever sticks up. I can see all the sky I can see at my location with this height.

 

Steve

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of dbrannan0523@...
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:05 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] Pier for 1100GTO #Guiding

 

I have an 1100GTO mount on order and plan to house it in an observatory on permanent pier with imaging in mind.   I own an old AP 8" diameter portable pier.  Would anchoring this in concrete and filling the tube with sand be sufficiently stable or is there clear benefit in purchasing a heavier thicker permanent pier for best performance.  Any thoughts?


Re: Mach2 transport case?

Jeffc
 

Thx Bill. I was also considering the 1615… if anything I heard it is a good case for the AP130GT.

I feel like the “9.4 inch” dimension is a bit short. But I just measured the mount with foam underneath and it looks doable.

The extra space is nice…. I would prefer keeping the contents as light as possible, but a place to stash cables and other small lightweight parts would work.

Thx

On Mar 18, 2021, at 6:02 PM, WMarton via groups.io <WMarton=verizon.net@groups.io> wrote:

I have my Mach1GTO in a Pelican Air 1615.


Re: Pier for 1100GTO #Guiding

Donald Brannan
 

Thanks for your advice.


Re: Mach2 transport case?

Eduardo Oliveira
 

Hi

I brought my Mach1 from the US back to Brazil in a Pelican iM2720 Storm Trak Case with foam. It arrived safe and unharmed. 

Regards

E. Oliveira



Em qui., 18 de mar. de 2021 às 22:02, WMarton via groups.io <WMarton=verizon.net@groups.io> escreveu:

I have my Mach1GTO in a Pelican Air 1615.  The interior dimensions are 29.6" x 15.5" x 9.4", so it is a somewhat tall and narrow Pelican case.  However, I can't rotate the DOVEDV10 of the Mach1 under the RA axis either because it will strike the altitude knob too.  But there is plenty of length to the case to accommodate the height of the "untucked" mount.  In fact there is enough room for the CW shaft, CP4, and other accessories.  I just put the Mach2 in the case and it also fits, but barely.  There is about one inch of space around the mount in the long dimension.  I am either going to use the 1615 case or buy a larger, cheaper case like the DeWalt ToughSystem 2.0 24" Mobile Tool Box.  There is plenty of room for the Mach2 and there are DeWalt accessory boxes that are stackable that can carry my telescope rings, CWs and other accessories.

Bill

9201 - 9220 of 86335