|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
We will consider it. I am exploring some things that might work for our present mount. It would remove about 12.5 lb part from the mount head which would then be brought back together in the field
We will consider it. I am exploring some things that might work for our present mount. It would remove about 12.5 lb part from the mount head which would then be brought back together in the field
|
By
Roland Christen
·
#69878
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
Very well said, Chris,
I never thought of it, but you are right-on.
Besides, an excellent scope and mount, like those from AP, will eventually pass from hand to hand – as teachers retire, or
Very well said, Chris,
I never thought of it, but you are right-on.
Besides, an excellent scope and mount, like those from AP, will eventually pass from hand to hand – as teachers retire, or
|
By
Joe Zeglinski
·
#69877
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
I would love it if you made another smaller mount. Hopefully one as accurate as the Mach1. I picked up a small iOptron CEM40 as a little grab and go mount that complements my 1100. Its so light and
I would love it if you made another smaller mount. Hopefully one as accurate as the Mach1. I picked up a small iOptron CEM40 as a little grab and go mount that complements my 1100. Its so light and
|
By
David
·
#69876
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
In that regard – AP mount’s weight ...
I always wondered how much more it might cost for a Titanium , or similar lighter metal mount. QUESTAR for example put out a special “limited
In that regard – AP mount’s weight ...
I always wondered how much more it might cost for a Titanium , or similar lighter metal mount. QUESTAR for example put out a special “limited
|
By
Joe Zeglinski
·
#69875
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
YES!
I would LOVE a lightweight Half-Mach to perfectly-match my Stowaway when travelling for eclipses.
Use high-tech materials like titanium and/or carbon fiber to get the weight down as much as
YES!
I would LOVE a lightweight Half-Mach to perfectly-match my Stowaway when travelling for eclipses.
Use high-tech materials like titanium and/or carbon fiber to get the weight down as much as
|
By
Christopher Erickson
·
#69874
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
Personally, I believe that we should...
NEVER GIVE TELESCOPES TO SCHOOLS.
GIVE TELESCOPES TO TEACHERS OR STUDENTS INSTEAD.
If you give it to a school, it inevitably ends up being controlled by school
Personally, I believe that we should...
NEVER GIVE TELESCOPES TO SCHOOLS.
GIVE TELESCOPES TO TEACHERS OR STUDENTS INSTEAD.
If you give it to a school, it inevitably ends up being controlled by school
|
By
Christopher Erickson
·
#69873
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
You ask if it would be worthwhile to split the Mach2 into two parts...
For me, absolutely. The main reason that (then) I chose the Mach1 over the MyT (despite my love of the red color :)) was the 28lb
You ask if it would be worthwhile to split the Mach2 into two parts...
For me, absolutely. The main reason that (then) I chose the Mach1 over the MyT (despite my love of the red color :)) was the 28lb
|
By
Stelios
·
#69872
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
I guess it would come down to what the weight increase would be. Perhaps its an acceptable tradeoff?
I guess it would come down to what the weight increase would be. Perhaps its an acceptable tradeoff?
|
By
Bill Long
·
#69871
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
As soon as you add encoders the weight goes up again.
Single encoder for RA to eliminate the periodic error could be doable. But then you lose the ability to always know where the scope is pointing in
As soon as you add encoders the weight goes up again.
Single encoder for RA to eliminate the periodic error could be doable. But then you lose the ability to always know where the scope is pointing in
|
By
Roland Christen
·
#69870
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
Need the AP400AE to come to light. Nice lightweight hyper-portable mount with encoders.
Need the AP400AE to come to light. Nice lightweight hyper-portable mount with encoders.
|
By
Bill Long
·
#69869
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
Interesting. I just weighed the two components of the Mach1. Ra weighs 17.20 lb. Dec weighs 11.95 lb. for a total of 29.15lb. That's without the dovetail plate which can weigh +- depending if it's the
Interesting. I just weighed the two components of the Mach1. Ra weighs 17.20 lb. Dec weighs 11.95 lb. for a total of 29.15lb. That's without the dovetail plate which can weigh +- depending if it's the
|
By
Roland Christen
·
#69868
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
I have a 900 and that is only 22 pounds. Maybe the 1100 is too heavy also but 42 for the Mach 2 is definitely too heavy. I could manage the Mach 1 weight but much prefer the single axis 900 weight.
I have a 900 and that is only 22 pounds. Maybe the 1100 is too heavy also but 42 for the Mach 2 is definitely too heavy. I could manage the Mach 1 weight but much prefer the single axis 900 weight.
|
By
Robert Chozick <rchozick@...>
·
#69867
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
This is great news that there will be more Stowaways! :)
This is great news that there will be more Stowaways! :)
|
By
Bill Long
·
#69866
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
If I may say so - when I weigh my MACH1 GTO and 1100 RA (no encoders) both 2018 models-
The MACH1 GTO is 31 lbs
The 1100 GTO RA is 27lbs
This is why I like the 1100 so much - it's actually a bit
If I may say so - when I weigh my MACH1 GTO and 1100 RA (no encoders) both 2018 models-
The MACH1 GTO is 31 lbs
The 1100 GTO RA is 27lbs
This is why I like the 1100 so much - it's actually a bit
|
By
Ken Murfitt
·
#69865
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
The Mach 1 is very portable. :)
The Mach 1 is very portable. :)
|
By
Bill Long
·
#69864
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
School is maybe a bad idea. Teachers don't stay after school in the dark. It probably won't be used.
Rolando
School is maybe a bad idea. Teachers don't stay after school in the dark. It probably won't be used.
Rolando
|
By
Roland Christen
·
#69863
·
|
|
Re: AP 1600 minimum move/MAXIM?
Thank you, Roland. I will be disabling DEC Comp this evening.
Eric
Thank you, Roland. I will be disabling DEC Comp this evening.
Eric
|
By
Eric Dreher <ericpdreher@...>
·
#69862
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
The Mach1 was the same weight as the RA axis of the 1100 mount ~ 28 lb. So why do you think the 1100 was much more portable than the Mach1?
If we could somehow split the Mach2 so that the heaviest
The Mach1 was the same weight as the RA axis of the 1100 mount ~ 28 lb. So why do you think the 1100 was much more portable than the Mach1?
If we could somehow split the Mach2 so that the heaviest
|
By
Roland Christen
·
#69861
·
|
|
Re: AP 1600 minimum move/MAXIM?
I never found Dec compensation to help in guiding. As the scope points further north the RA guide command is increased to compensate for the cosine of the Dec angle. But it is really not a good idea.
I never found Dec compensation to help in guiding. As the scope points further north the RA guide command is increased to compensate for the cosine of the Dec angle. But it is really not a good idea.
|
By
Roland Christen
·
#69860
·
|
|
Re: Which to Choose; Absolute Encoders or 92 mm Stowaway
That is a great suggestion. I have alsothought about donating it to a local school. Only bad thing is I kept thepier to use with my 1100 mount.
Best Regards
Michael Hambrick
ARLANXEO
TSR Global
That is a great suggestion. I have alsothought about donating it to a local school. Only bad thing is I kept thepier to use with my 1100 mount.
Best Regards
Michael Hambrick
ARLANXEO
TSR Global
|
By
Michael Hambrick <mike.hambrick@...>
·
#69859
·
|