Date   

Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Tony Benjamin <tonybenjamin@...>
 

Looking for better J

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: April 12, 2019 2:43 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

$1000 off currently, and $1495 off if you add at the time you order the mount. 

 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of 'Tony Benjamin' tonybenjamin@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 2:39 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

Still have my fingers crossed for a possible “fire sale” on AEs for the 1100 J

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: April 12, 2019 2:38 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

The only time I release the clutches is for balancing my scope on the mount, after that I dont touch them at all, so I think the 1100AE would work perfectly fine for my use. While reducing noise is always a nice thing, I am kind of used to the sound my 1100 mount makes slewing around. Other than Snohomish frogs, its usually the only other noise I hear setting up in the spring and summertime. 🙂

 

I do want the precision of the encoders, and I am a fan of APPM and going unguided completely. Still, guiding would benefit from the addition of the encoders as well. 

 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of 'Wade Hilmo' y.groups@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 2:31 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

I can think of a couple:

 

1) The encoders are coupled to the shaft, so even if you release the clutches, the mount always knows where the axes are actually pointing.

 

2) The drive on the Mach2 is really, really quiet – and notably faster than 1200x (I saw some videos of it from NEAF at the last Seattle Astro Imaging SIG).

 

That said, I am not planning on switching from my AP1100 to the Mach2.  As much as I would like to, I am really pleased with the 1100.  At this point, if I felt like I needed encoders on it, I would probably add them rather than switch mounts.  I do have the encoders on my 1600, so you can be sure that I’m going to be paying pretty close attention to any (meaningful) performance differences between them.

 

I have had my 1100 set up since last fall and just took it down today.  I’ll be putting up the 1600.  Now that the current released version of APCC has the encoder utility built in, and has reportedly improved APPM, I am going to do some playing with it.

 

-Wade

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 2:23 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

My understanding is that it does not. 

 

This has me reconsidering AE for the 1100 vs going with the Mach 2. Being able to keep my through mount cabling and separation of the axis is important. The one thing I am not sure of is, other than the obvious difference in capacity, what difference would the 1100AE and Mach2 have? Is there a new feature or enhancement the Mach2 offers that would be traded off for just adding AE to an existing 1100 CP4?

 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of dragracingdan@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 5:46 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

I know another user answered this, but does the Mach2 easily split in half for transport like the 1100 mount?

Thanks


Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Bill Long
 

$1000 off currently, and $1495 off if you add at the time you order the mount. 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of 'Tony Benjamin' tonybenjamin@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 2:39 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions
 
 

Still have my fingers crossed for a possible “fire sale” on AEs for the 1100 J

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: April 12, 2019 2:38 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

The only time I release the clutches is for balancing my scope on the mount, after that I dont touch them at all, so I think the 1100AE would work perfectly fine for my use. While reducing noise is always a nice thing, I am kind of used to the sound my 1100 mount makes slewing around. Other than Snohomish frogs, its usually the only other noise I hear setting up in the spring and summertime. 🙂



I do want the precision of the encoders, and I am a fan of APPM and going unguided completely. Still, guiding would benefit from the addition of the encoders as well. 

 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of 'Wade Hilmo' y.groups@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 2:31 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

I can think of a couple:

 

1) The encoders are coupled to the shaft, so even if you release the clutches, the mount always knows where the axes are actually pointing.

 

2) The drive on the Mach2 is really, really quiet – and notably faster than 1200x (I saw some videos of it from NEAF at the last Seattle Astro Imaging SIG).

 

That said, I am not planning on switching from my AP1100 to the Mach2.  As much as I would like to, I am really pleased with the 1100.  At this point, if I felt like I needed encoders on it, I would probably add them rather than switch mounts.  I do have the encoders on my 1600, so you can be sure that I’m going to be paying pretty close attention to any (meaningful) performance differences between them.

 

I have had my 1100 set up since last fall and just took it down today.  I’ll be putting up the 1600.  Now that the current released version of APCC has the encoder utility built in, and has reportedly improved APPM, I am going to do some playing with it.

 

-Wade

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 2:23 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

My understanding is that it does not. 

 

This has me reconsidering AE for the 1100 vs going with the Mach 2. Being able to keep my through mount cabling and separation of the axis is important. The one thing I am not sure of is, other than the obvious difference in capacity, what difference would the 1100AE and Mach2 have? Is there a new feature or enhancement the Mach2 offers that would be traded off for just adding AE to an existing 1100 CP4?

 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of dragracingdan@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 5:46 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

I know another user answered this, but does the Mach2 easily split in half for transport like the 1100 mount?

Thanks


Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Tony Benjamin <tonybenjamin@...>
 

Still have my fingers crossed for a possible “fire sale” on AEs for the 1100 J

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: April 12, 2019 2:38 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

The only time I release the clutches is for balancing my scope on the mount, after that I dont touch them at all, so I think the 1100AE would work perfectly fine for my use. While reducing noise is always a nice thing, I am kind of used to the sound my 1100 mount makes slewing around. Other than Snohomish frogs, its usually the only other noise I hear setting up in the spring and summertime. 🙂



I do want the precision of the encoders, and I am a fan of APPM and going unguided completely. Still, guiding would benefit from the addition of the encoders as well. 

 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of 'Wade Hilmo' y.groups@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 2:31 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

I can think of a couple:

 

1) The encoders are coupled to the shaft, so even if you release the clutches, the mount always knows where the axes are actually pointing.

 

2) The drive on the Mach2 is really, really quiet – and notably faster than 1200x (I saw some videos of it from NEAF at the last Seattle Astro Imaging SIG).

 

That said, I am not planning on switching from my AP1100 to the Mach2.  As much as I would like to, I am really pleased with the 1100.  At this point, if I felt like I needed encoders on it, I would probably add them rather than switch mounts.  I do have the encoders on my 1600, so you can be sure that I’m going to be paying pretty close attention to any (meaningful) performance differences between them.

 

I have had my 1100 set up since last fall and just took it down today.  I’ll be putting up the 1600.  Now that the current released version of APCC has the encoder utility built in, and has reportedly improved APPM, I am going to do some playing with it.

 

-Wade

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 2:23 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

My understanding is that it does not. 

 

This has me reconsidering AE for the 1100 vs going with the Mach 2. Being able to keep my through mount cabling and separation of the axis is important. The one thing I am not sure of is, other than the obvious difference in capacity, what difference would the 1100AE and Mach2 have? Is there a new feature or enhancement the Mach2 offers that would be traded off for just adding AE to an existing 1100 CP4?

 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of dragracingdan@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 5:46 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

I know another user answered this, but does the Mach2 easily split in half for transport like the 1100 mount?

Thanks


Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Bill Long
 

The only time I release the clutches is for balancing my scope on the mount, after that I dont touch them at all, so I think the 1100AE would work perfectly fine for my use. While reducing noise is always a nice thing, I am kind of used to the sound my 1100 mount makes slewing around. Other than Snohomish frogs, its usually the only other noise I hear setting up in the spring and summertime. 🙂

I do want the precision of the encoders, and I am a fan of APPM and going unguided completely. Still, guiding would benefit from the addition of the encoders as well. 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of 'Wade Hilmo' y.groups@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 2:31 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions
 
 

I can think of a couple:

 

1) The encoders are coupled to the shaft, so even if you release the clutches, the mount always knows where the axes are actually pointing.

 

2) The drive on the Mach2 is really, really quiet – and notably faster than 1200x (I saw some videos of it from NEAF at the last Seattle Astro Imaging SIG).

 

That said, I am not planning on switching from my AP1100 to the Mach2.  As much as I would like to, I am really pleased with the 1100.  At this point, if I felt like I needed encoders on it, I would probably add them rather than switch mounts.  I do have the encoders on my 1600, so you can be sure that I’m going to be paying pretty close attention to any (meaningful) performance differences between them.

 

I have had my 1100 set up since last fall and just took it down today.  I’ll be putting up the 1600.  Now that the current released version of APCC has the encoder utility built in, and has reportedly improved APPM, I am going to do some playing with it.

 

-Wade

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 2:23 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

My understanding is that it does not. 

 

This has me reconsidering AE for the 1100 vs going with the Mach 2. Being able to keep my through mount cabling and separation of the axis is important. The one thing I am not sure of is, other than the obvious difference in capacity, what difference would the 1100AE and Mach2 have? Is there a new feature or enhancement the Mach2 offers that would be traded off for just adding AE to an existing 1100 CP4?

 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of dragracingdan@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 5:46 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

I know another user answered this, but does the Mach2 easily split in half for transport like the 1100 mount?

Thanks


Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

W Hilmo
 

I can think of a couple:

 

1) The encoders are coupled to the shaft, so even if you release the clutches, the mount always knows where the axes are actually pointing.

 

2) The drive on the Mach2 is really, really quiet – and notably faster than 1200x (I saw some videos of it from NEAF at the last Seattle Astro Imaging SIG).

 

That said, I am not planning on switching from my AP1100 to the Mach2.  As much as I would like to, I am really pleased with the 1100.  At this point, if I felt like I needed encoders on it, I would probably add them rather than switch mounts.  I do have the encoders on my 1600, so you can be sure that I’m going to be paying pretty close attention to any (meaningful) performance differences between them.

 

I have had my 1100 set up since last fall and just took it down today.  I’ll be putting up the 1600.  Now that the current released version of APCC has the encoder utility built in, and has reportedly improved APPM, I am going to do some playing with it.

 

-Wade

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 2:23 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

My understanding is that it does not. 

 

This has me reconsidering AE for the 1100 vs going with the Mach 2. Being able to keep my through mount cabling and separation of the axis is important. The one thing I am not sure of is, other than the obvious difference in capacity, what difference would the 1100AE and Mach2 have? Is there a new feature or enhancement the Mach2 offers that would be traded off for just adding AE to an existing 1100 CP4?

 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of dragracingdan@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 5:46 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

I know another user answered this, but does the Mach2 easily split in half for transport like the 1100 mount?

Thanks


Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Bill Long
 

My understanding is that it does not. 

This has me reconsidering AE for the 1100 vs going with the Mach 2. Being able to keep my through mount cabling and separation of the axis is important. The one thing I am not sure of is, other than the obvious difference in capacity, what difference would the 1100AE and Mach2 have? Is there a new feature or enhancement the Mach2 offers that would be traded off for just adding AE to an existing 1100 CP4?


From: ap-gto@... on behalf of dragracingdan@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 5:46 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions
 
 

I know another user answered this, but does the Mach2 easily split in half for transport like the 1100 mount?

Thanks


Re: List vs reseller

Bill Long
 

Thank you Marj! 🙂 Good to know!


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of Marj marj@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 10:28 AM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] List vs reseller
 
 

We expect to start shipping in the Fall.

 

Clear Skies,

 

Marj Christen

Astro-Physics, Inc

11250 Forest Hills Rd

Machesney Park, IL 61115

Phone: 815-282-1513

Fax: 815-282-9847

www.astro-physics.com

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 8:15 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] List vs reseller

 

 

Hey Roland,

 

Is there a fairly solid ship date range for these Mach2 mounts? Something you guys would be fairly confident in terms of setting customer expectations? 

 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of chris1011@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 5:28 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] List vs reseller

 

 

Depending on where you are on the list versus where the dealer is. A lot of dealers jumped on right after the announcement. In any case, we'll get around to everyone eventually.

 

Rolando

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Long bill@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
To: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thu, Apr 11, 2019 7:20 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] List vs reseller

 

IIRC the reseller has to wait just like you would.

 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of glutch@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 4:36 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] List vs reseller

 

 

So being new to the process of being on a list to purchase vs getting the mount via a reseller my question is which is the better route?  I am already on the wait list for the Mach2 but have seen options to put a down payment on a mach2 mount on a resellers web site.

 

George C. Lutch

 

 


Re: Mach 2 - Lower Weight Limit?

Mike Miller
 

I have never heard of a lower weight limit for a mount.

But if there was one, you could always clamp some extra weight on to your OTA. :)

-Mike Miller


Mach 2 - Lower Weight Limit?

miguelmjr14@...
 

I have a feeling that I already know the answer, but I feel that I need to ask the questions anyways.


Does the Mach 2 lose guiding accuracy and/or stability when using small and light telescopes, scopes such as a Takahashi FC-100 or even a Takahashi FS-60?


Are there any concerns associated with using this mount with small light telescopes?


Thanks,


Miguel   8-)


Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Dale Ghent
 

Yeah, it's not a fix for a C14-class instrument but for smaller refactors it'll do. So far, mounting tests with a 130GTX and a 152mm doublet seem to indicate mechanical solidness using distant terrestrial targets. Once this east coast slime lifts I'll have a much better idea.

If it's just going to be that C14 living on the mount, then Roland's ring shim solution is your best and preferred remediation. This saddle is handy because I have 5 different telescopes I cycle on and off my Mach1 depending on what I'm doing, and things change a bit, so shimming rings might work once but not reliably afterwards.

Robin of SharpCap also has a utility called ConeSharp that can help assess this through an imaging train:
https://www.sharpcap.co.uk/conesharp

/dale

On Apr 12, 2019, at 1:30 PM, 'Wade Hilmo' y.groups@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...> wrote:



According to the link below, this device can handle guide scopes up to 15lb.

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 10:21 AM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Mach2 mount - answers to questions



ADM happens to make a (little bit spendy) DV saddle that has azimuth and elevation fine adjustments built into it. It's aimed at the side-by-side crowd to help make sure that scope #2 is pointing at the same place as scope #1. I reckon it would also be useful for correcting cone error with a single scope setup, and certainly if you are swapping multiple telescopes out, each which may have their own amount of error. I picked one up at NEAF for my SbS solar outreach configuration and it seems well made, though I haven't had the chance to use it yet due to weather.

https://www.admaccessories.com/product/max-guider-altaz-aiming-device-female-dovetail-version/

/dale

On Apr 12, 2019, at 11:47 AM, chris1011@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...> wrote:



It's really is quite easy and there is a brilliant way to do it that is very painless. I have a 17" astrograph that weighs more than your C14. It is in my observatory here at the factory. The observatory has high walls and there is no place to point the scope to an earthly object.

The scope originally had an orthogonal error of about 30 arc minutes, which doesn't sound bad, but at 3400mm focal length it amounts to a large error on the chip. I thought about "fixing" it electronically with software, but that only works over a certain amount of the sky. As you get toward the pole, no amount of "fixing" in software can bring the pole into view.

So, let's think about what's really happening.. Mentally place the telescope in the Park3 position, pointing toward the pole with counterweights down. If you have a +1 degree orthogonal error the mount is pointing at the pole but the scope is pointing 1 degree above the pole. There is no RA or Dec motion that can somehow move the scope to point at the pole (thus no software can "fix" this). The only motion that can point the scope to the pole will be to shim the rear ring by 1 degree, which will pivot the scope downward. The orthogonal error would then be gone completely.

So then theoretically all you need to do is send the scope to 90 deg N ( or -90 deg S for those in the southern hemisphere), take an image, plate solve and figure out how far off the true pole your scope is pointed. Then shim until it points to true north. All this assumes that you have the mount properly polar aligned.

In my case I had an eyepiece on the back of the scope and did it visually. Since there isn't a star at the exact pole, I used Polaris instead.. I simply slewed the mount to Polaris and noted the position of the star in the eyepiece off to the edge. My scope is attached by 2 bolts on the front ring and two holding the rear ring. I partially loosened the two rear bolts, gently tapped a thin wedge under the ring to force the rear of the scope up until Polaris appeared in the center of the eyepiece. I replaced the wedge with a metal shim, re-tightened the bolts and checked to make sure Polaris was still in the center. You may, of course have to move the scope a bit in Dec to bring it to the exact center of your eyepiece field, but that does not affect the orthogonality in any way. How long did it take? Overall I was done in less than 15 minutes. Ideally a push-pull mechanism for the rear ring would have been very nice to have instead of using shims.

Once I had done that, the orthogonal error was pretty much gone, down to less than 15 - 20 arc seconds (about the width of Mars). The only thing now that might affect the East-West flip error is tube flex which on my scope is almost nothing. So, now I can flip sides and have the object land on the 8300 chip toward the center. Makes modeling a lot simpler too because the equations don't blow up near the pole.

Easy-Peasy and brilliant, no?

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: 'Wade Hilmo' y.groups@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
To: ap-gto <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2019 9:12 am
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions



Polar alignment is no problem. There are lots of ways to do that (I just read your pivot star method, and it sounds brilliant).
Fixing orthogonality in the scope is not what I would call “incredibly easy” for a scope like my C14, although I confess that I haven’t tried. If I do it out in the field, where I don’t have a good workspace to be able to shim the dovetail. That’s why I would be happy to see this handled by the mount.
Thanks!
-Wade








Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

W Hilmo
 

According to the link below, this device can handle guide scopes up to 15lb.

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 10:21 AM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 


ADM happens to make a (little bit spendy) DV saddle that has azimuth and elevation fine adjustments built into it. It's aimed at the side-by-side crowd to help make sure that scope #2 is pointing at the same place as scope #1. I reckon it would also be useful for correcting cone error with a single scope setup, and certainly if you are swapping multiple telescopes out, each which may have their own amount of error. I picked one up at NEAF for my SbS solar outreach configuration and it seems well made, though I haven't had the chance to use it yet due to weather.

https://www.admaccessories.com/product/max-guider-altaz-aiming-device-female-dovetail-version/

/dale

> On Apr 12, 2019, at 11:47 AM, chris1011@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's really is quite easy and there is a brilliant way to do it that is very painless. I have a 17" astrograph that weighs more than your C14. It is in my observatory here at the factory. The observatory has high walls and there is no place to point the scope to an earthly object.
>
> The scope originally had an orthogonal error of about 30 arc minutes, which doesn't sound bad, but at 3400mm focal length it amounts to a large error on the chip. I thought about "fixing" it electronically with software, but that only works over a certain amount of the sky. As you get toward the pole, no amount of "fixing" in software can bring the pole into view.
>
> So, let's think about what's really happening. Mentally place the telescope in the Park3 position, pointing toward the pole with counterweights down. If you have a +1 degree orthogonal error the mount is pointing at the pole but the scope is pointing 1 degree above the pole. There is no RA or Dec motion that can somehow move the scope to point at the pole (thus no software can "fix" this). The only motion that can point the scope to the pole will be to shim the rear ring by 1 degree, which will pivot the scope downward. The orthogonal error would then be gone completely.
>
> So then theoretically all you need to do is send the scope to 90 deg N ( or -90 deg S for those in the southern hemisphere), take an image, plate solve and figure out how far off the true pole your scope is pointed. Then shim until it points to true north. All this assumes that you have the mount properly polar aligned.
>
> In my case I had an eyepiece on the back of the scope and did it visually. Since there isn't a star at the exact pole, I used Polaris instead.. I simply slewed the mount to Polaris and noted the position of the star in the eyepiece off to the edge. My scope is attached by 2 bolts on the front ring and two holding the rear ring. I partially loosened the two rear bolts, gently tapped a thin wedge under the ring to force the rear of the scope up until Polaris appeared in the center of the eyepiece. I replaced the wedge with a metal shim, re-tightened the bolts and checked to make sure Polaris was still in the center. You may, of course have to move the scope a bit in Dec to bring it to the exact center of your eyepiece field, but that does not affect the orthogonality in any way. How long did it take? Overall I was done in less than 15 minutes. Ideally a push-pull mechanism for the rear ring would have been very nice to have instead of using shims.
>
> Once I had done that, the orthogonal error was pretty much gone, down to less than 15 - 20 arc seconds (about the width of Mars). The only thing now that might affect the East-West flip error is tube flex which on my scope is almost nothing. So, now I can flip sides and have the object land on the 8300 chip toward the center. Makes modeling a lot simpler too because the equations don't blow up near the pole.
>
> Easy-Peasy and brilliant, no?
>
> Rolando
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 'Wade Hilmo' y.groups@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
> To: ap-gto <ap-gto@...>
> Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2019 9:12 am
> Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions
>
>
>
> Polar alignment is no problem. There are lots of ways to do that (I just read your pivot star method, and it sounds brilliant).
> Fixing orthogonality in the scope is not what I would call “incredibly easy” for a scope like my C14, although I confess that I haven’t tried. If I do it out in the field, where I don’t have a good workspace to be able to shim the dovetail. That’s why I would be happy to see this handled by the mount.
> Thanks!
> -Wade
>
>
>
>
>
>


Re: List vs reseller

 

The Mach1 list is now the Mach2 list. So, people on this list will be notified first when we are ready.

 

Clear Skies,

 

Marj Christen

Astro-Physics, Inc

11250 Forest Hills Rd

Machesney Park, IL 61115

Phone: 815-282-1513

Fax: 815-282-9847

www.astro-physics.com

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 7:38 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] List vs reseller

 

 

I was on the list for the Mach1 about a month ago.  Guess I will just see how it goes with you guys and the list.  Certainly is easier to hold onto my money a bit longer.

 

George C. Lutch

 

 

 

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 7:29 PM chris1011@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...> wrote:

 

Depending on where you are on the list versus where the dealer is. A lot of dealers jumped on right after the announcement. In any case, we'll get around to everyone eventually.

 

Rolando

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Long bill@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
To: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thu, Apr 11, 2019 7:20 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] List vs reseller

 

IIRC the reseller has to wait just like you would.

 


From: ap-gto@... <ap-gto@...> on behalf of glutch@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 4:36 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] List vs reseller

 

 

So being new to the process of being on a list to purchase vs getting the mount via a reseller my question is which is the better route?  I am already on the wait list for the Mach2 but have seen options to put a down payment on a mach2 mount on a resellers web site.

 

George C. Lutch

 

 


Re: List vs reseller

 

We expect to start shipping in the Fall.

 

Clear Skies,

 

Marj Christen

Astro-Physics, Inc

11250 Forest Hills Rd

Machesney Park, IL 61115

Phone: 815-282-1513

Fax: 815-282-9847

www.astro-physics.com

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 8:15 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] List vs reseller

 

 

Hey Roland,

 

Is there a fairly solid ship date range for these Mach2 mounts? Something you guys would be fairly confident in terms of setting customer expectations? 

 


From: ap-gto@... on behalf of chris1011@... [ap-gto]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 5:28 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] List vs reseller

 

 

Depending on where you are on the list versus where the dealer is. A lot of dealers jumped on right after the announcement. In any case, we'll get around to everyone eventually.

 

Rolando

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Long bill@... [ap-gto]
To: ap-gto@...
Sent: Thu, Apr 11, 2019 7:20 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] List vs reseller

 

IIRC the reseller has to wait just like you would.

 


From: ap-gto@... on behalf of glutch@... [ap-gto]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 4:36 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] List vs reseller

 

 

So being new to the process of being on a list to purchase vs getting the mount via a reseller my question is which is the better route?  I am already on the wait list for the Mach2 but have seen options to put a down payment on a mach2 mount on a resellers web site.

 

George C. Lutch

 

 


Re: List vs reseller

 

We are not accepting orders or payments  from resellers or anyone else at this point. You may wish to select another  reseller that is not requiring a down payment to go on their list and sign up on ours, as well. There are lots of free options.

 

Clear Skies,

 

Marj Christen

Astro-Physics, Inc

11250 Forest Hills Rd

Machesney Park, IL 61115

Phone: 815-282-1513

Fax: 815-282-9847

www.astro-physics.com

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 6:37 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] List vs reseller

 

 

So being new to the process of being on a list to purchase vs getting the mount via a reseller my question is which is the better route?  I am already on the wait list for the Mach2 but have seen options to put a down payment on a mach2 mount on a resellers web site.

 

George C. Lutch

 


Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Dale Ghent
 

ADM happens to make a (little bit spendy) DV saddle that has azimuth and elevation fine adjustments built into it. It's aimed at the side-by-side crowd to help make sure that scope #2 is pointing at the same place as scope #1. I reckon it would also be useful for correcting cone error with a single scope setup, and certainly if you are swapping multiple telescopes out, each which may have their own amount of error. I picked one up at NEAF for my SbS solar outreach configuration and it seems well made, though I haven't had the chance to use it yet due to weather.

https://www.admaccessories.com/product/max-guider-altaz-aiming-device-female-dovetail-version/

/dale

On Apr 12, 2019, at 11:47 AM, chris1011@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...> wrote:



It's really is quite easy and there is a brilliant way to do it that is very painless. I have a 17" astrograph that weighs more than your C14. It is in my observatory here at the factory. The observatory has high walls and there is no place to point the scope to an earthly object.

The scope originally had an orthogonal error of about 30 arc minutes, which doesn't sound bad, but at 3400mm focal length it amounts to a large error on the chip. I thought about "fixing" it electronically with software, but that only works over a certain amount of the sky. As you get toward the pole, no amount of "fixing" in software can bring the pole into view.

So, let's think about what's really happening. Mentally place the telescope in the Park3 position, pointing toward the pole with counterweights down. If you have a +1 degree orthogonal error the mount is pointing at the pole but the scope is pointing 1 degree above the pole. There is no RA or Dec motion that can somehow move the scope to point at the pole (thus no software can "fix" this). The only motion that can point the scope to the pole will be to shim the rear ring by 1 degree, which will pivot the scope downward. The orthogonal error would then be gone completely.

So then theoretically all you need to do is send the scope to 90 deg N ( or -90 deg S for those in the southern hemisphere), take an image, plate solve and figure out how far off the true pole your scope is pointed. Then shim until it points to true north. All this assumes that you have the mount properly polar aligned.

In my case I had an eyepiece on the back of the scope and did it visually. Since there isn't a star at the exact pole, I used Polaris instead. I simply slewed the mount to Polaris and noted the position of the star in the eyepiece off to the edge. My scope is attached by 2 bolts on the front ring and two holding the rear ring. I partially loosened the two rear bolts, gently tapped a thin wedge under the ring to force the rear of the scope up until Polaris appeared in the center of the eyepiece. I replaced the wedge with a metal shim, re-tightened the bolts and checked to make sure Polaris was still in the center. You may, of course have to move the scope a bit in Dec to bring it to the exact center of your eyepiece field, but that does not affect the orthogonality in any way. How long did it take? Overall I was done in less than 15 minutes. Ideally a push-pull mechanism for the rear ring would have been very nice to have instead of using shims.

Once I had done that, the orthogonal error was pretty much gone, down to less than 15 - 20 arc seconds (about the width of Mars). The only thing now that might affect the East-West flip error is tube flex which on my scope is almost nothing. So, now I can flip sides and have the object land on the 8300 chip toward the center. Makes modeling a lot simpler too because the equations don't blow up near the pole.

Easy-Peasy and brilliant, no?

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: 'Wade Hilmo' y.groups@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
To: ap-gto <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2019 9:12 am
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions



Polar alignment is no problem. There are lots of ways to do that (I just read your pivot star method, and it sounds brilliant).
Fixing orthogonality in the scope is not what I would call “incredibly easy” for a scope like my C14, although I confess that I haven’t tried. If I do it out in the field, where I don’t have a good workspace to be able to shim the dovetail. That’s why I would be happy to see this handled by the mount.
Thanks!
-Wade






Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

W Hilmo
 

I’ll have to give it a try, but it will still need to be in the field because I have trees blocking my view of Polaris.  I am also a bit hesitant to be loosening the Celestron dovetail while the scope is mounted.  I would have more confidence with a good set of rings…

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 8:45 AM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

 

Fixing orthogonality in the scope is not what I would call “incredibly easy” for a scope like my C14, although I confess that I haven’t tried.  If I understand correctly, I need to be able to point the scope at a distant, fixed object. 

It's really is quite easy and there is a brilliant way to do it that is very painless. I have a 17" astrograph that weighs more than your C14. It is in my observatory here at the factory. The observatory has high walls and there is no place to point the scope to an earthly object.

 

The scope originally had an orthogonal error of about 30 arc minutes, which doesn't sound bad, but at 3400mm focal length it amounts to a large error on the chip. I thought about "fixing" it electronically with software, but that only works over a certain amount of the sky. As you get toward the pole, no amount of "fixing" in software can bring the pole into view.

 

So, let's think about what's really happening. Mentally place the telescope in the Park3 position, pointing toward the pole with counterweights down. If you have a +1 degree orthogonal error the mount is pointing at the pole but the scope is pointing 1 degree above the pole.. There is no RA or Dec motion that can somehow move the scope to point at the pole (thus no software can "fix" this). The only motion that can point the scope to the pole will be to shim the rear ring by 1 degree, which will pivot the scope downward. The orthogonal error would then be gone completely.

 

So then theoretically all you need to do is send the scope to 90 deg N ( or -90 deg S for those in the southern hemisphere), take an image, plate solve and figure out how far off the true pole your scope is pointed. Then shim until it points to true north. All this assumes that you have the mount properly polar aligned.

 

In my case I had an eyepiece on the back of the scope and did it visually. Since there isn't a star at the exact pole, I used Polaris instead. I simply slewed the mount to Polaris and noted the position of the star in the eyepiece off to the edge. My scope is attached by 2 bolts on the front ring and two holding the rear ring. I partially loosened the two rear bolts, gently tapped a thin wedge under the ring to force the rear of the scope up until Polaris appeared in the center of the eyepiece. I replaced the wedge with a metal shim, re-tightened the bolts and checked to make sure Polaris was still in the center. You may, of course have to move the scope a bit in Dec to bring it to the exact center of your eyepiece field, but that does not affect the orthogonality in any way. How long did it take? Overall I was done in less than 15 minutes. Ideally a push-pull mechanism for the rear ring would have been very nice to have instead of using shims.

 

Once I had done that, the orthogonal error was pretty much gone, down to less than 15 - 20 arc seconds (about the width of Mars).. The only thing now that might affect the East-West flip error is tube flex which on my scope is almost nothing. So, now I can flip sides and have the object land on the 8300 chip toward the center. Makes modeling a lot simpler too because the equations don't blow up near the pole.

 

Easy-Peasy and brilliant, no?

 

Rolando

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Wade Hilmo' y.groups@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
To: ap-gto <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2019 9:12 am
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

Polar alignment is no problem.  There are lots of ways to do that (I just read your pivot star method, and it sounds brilliant).

 

Fixing orthogonality in the scope is not what I would call “incredibly easy” for a scope like my C14, although I confess that I haven’t tried.  If I understand correctly, I need to be able to point the scope at a distant, fixed object.  This would be impossible at home, because there are trees no further than a couple hundred feet in every direction (and much closer in most directions).  I would have to do it out in the field, where I don’t have a good workspace to be able to shim the dovetail.  That’s why I would be happy to see this handled by the mount.

 

Thanks!

 

-Wade

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 4:41 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

Well I think we can do a limited pointing model where you only need a few stars on either side (maybe 3 to 6). That's not enough data to do unguided imaging, but it can be done quickly. The real key is to do precision polar alignment, and I can show you how to use the power of the encoder mount's goto function to nail PA to the arc sec level in less than 60 seconds per azimuth and altitude adjustment. It uses what I call my "Pivot Star" method. It's a new method as far as i know but it borrows some features from my Daytime Polar Alignment routine - but much easier and very fast.

 

Once you are precision polar aligned, I have found that you can slew almost anywhere in the sky and have the object in the field of an 80 - 100 power eyepiece. No model needed. The only thing that throws it off is tube non-orthogonality when you flip sides. That would either have to be fixed mechanically (another incredibly easy thing to do) or it has to be measured and compensated in the software. I'll be looking at that also.

 

Rolando

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Wade Hilmo' y.groups@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
To: ap-gto <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thu, Apr 11, 2019 5:37 pm
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

Just to toss out my thoughts on this response (since I asked for a pointing model earlier in the thread)…

 

You make the suggestion below that a portable user might use plate solving for imaging.  I would point out that if I am plate solving, then I am using a computer and will be running with APCC Pro – and this will definitely be my own common use case.

 

I can see the use case for unguided imaging with only a camera, and no computer and that’s really cool.  But I’m not sure how many people work like that.  I would guess that, for this quality of mount, that the majority of users would be imagers with an Astro camera and a computer.  I would guess that there are also going to be a lot of visual users (which is where I would personally benefit from a pointing model vs. a tracking model).  And I would think that the DSLR imagers with no computers would be quite a bit smaller than either of the other groups.  Of course, you are have actual data, and I just have my anecdotal experience at a (pretty large) number of star parties, so I could easily be wrong about this.

 

I’ve actually considered getting a stick PC to run APCC and attaching it to the mount, and then connecting SkySafari to the PC’s WiFi instead of the CP4’s WiFi.  The idea would be that I would run APPM at dusk to create a pointing model with a modest number of points.  For the rest of the night, I would do visual using SkySafari to drive the mount.  I would love to have this capability built into the mount.

 

That said, this is just my wish.  And frankly, if I were to sit down and come up with a list of every possible feature that I could ever want, the Mach2 pretty much hits everything, but this one case.  And then some.  It truly advances the state of the art in mounts.

 

Thanks,

-Wade

 

 

 

 

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:12 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

 

I will let you know more about it when we get our new keypad software. Both CP4 and CP5 have memory allocated for modeling. Right now we have plans to implement tracking modeling for unguided imaging.

 

Pointing models such as what is in APCC Pro do an all-sky measurement of sky positions which allows the sky map to be distorted and shifted to account for polar misalignment, atmospheric refraction and a host of other variables. This is quite useful for permanent installations since it only has to be done once and then tweaked for atmospheric pressure.. Out of this modeling, you not only get a pointing correction but the model allows extracting a tracking correction over most of the sky.

 

However, if you're portable, you may use plate solve to do your pointing function, but you really want tracking correction for unguided imaging. This can be done much easier and straight forward, and that is what we are proposing to use the extra memory for. If it turns out that you all want a simple pointing correction model, then that may also be possible, but will be nowhere near the complexity of what's in APCC Pro.

 

Roland

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: marfig1970@... [ap-gto] <ap-gto@...>
To: ap-gto <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Wed, Apr 10, 2019 3:43 pm
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

 

Thank you for all the information. But I have a couple of questions about the new Pointing Model:

 

1) When will it be available for current CP4 users, will it work with all mounts that have it?

 

2) How exactly will it work, will it require any special software to use it?

 

Thanks again.

 

 

 


Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

John A. Sillasen
 

RAPAS - Don't leave home without it!



John A. Sillasen


Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

John A. Sillasen
 

Personally,  I would really like to see your Azimuth and Altitude adjustments you described in a video.
It may warrant best seller votes to watch it again and again just to refresh my memory.
Over and over.  I still refer to a One Note Cheat Sheet for stored positions in my hand controller!  I do that every time I setup.

Repetition leads to making jobs like this automatic.

Thank you for suggesting making this into a video.  Too many times these Pearl's of Wisdom get lost in the archives of messages. 



John A. Sillasen


Re: Mach2 Hand Controller

Roland Christen
 

Yes, of course. All versions of the hand controller will work with our mounts. In order to get the most out of the new mount we will have new software which allows the hand controller to know which mount it is communicating with. So all you need to do is to download the new software, and the controller will then work with the new Mach2 as well as any previous mount.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: llp41astro@... [ap-gto]
To: ap-gto
Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2019 10:17 am
Subject: [ap-gto] Mach2 Hand Controller



Will the Mach1 hand controller work with the Mach2?

Larry



Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions

Roland Christen
 

It's really is quite easy and there is a brilliant way to do it that is very painless. I have a 17" astrograph that weighs more than your C14. It is in my observatory here at the factory. The observatory has high walls and there is no place to point the scope to an earthly object.

The scope originally had an orthogonal error of about 30 arc minutes, which doesn't sound bad, but at 3400mm focal length it amounts to a large error on the chip. I thought about "fixing" it electronically with software, but that only works over a certain amount of the sky. As you get toward the pole, no amount of "fixing" in software can bring the pole into view.

So, let's think about what's really happening. Mentally place the telescope in the Park3 position, pointing toward the pole with counterweights down. If you have a +1 degree orthogonal error the mount is pointing at the pole but the scope is pointing 1 degree above the pole. There is no RA or Dec motion that can somehow move the scope to point at the pole (thus no software can "fix" this). The only motion that can point the scope to the pole will be to shim the rear ring by 1 degree, which will pivot the scope downward. The orthogonal error would then be gone completely.

So then theoretically all you need to do is send the scope to 90 deg N ( or -90 deg S for those in the southern hemisphere), take an image, plate solve and figure out how far off the true pole your scope is pointed. Then shim until it points to true north. All this assumes that you have the mount properly polar aligned.

In my case I had an eyepiece on the back of the scope and did it visually. Since there isn't a star at the exact pole, I used Polaris instead. I simply slewed the mount to Polaris and noted the position of the star in the eyepiece off to the edge. My scope is attached by 2 bolts on the front ring and two holding the rear ring. I partially loosened the two rear bolts, gently tapped a thin wedge under the ring to force the rear of the scope up until Polaris appeared in the center of the eyepiece. I replaced the wedge with a metal shim, re-tightened the bolts and checked to make sure Polaris was still in the center. You may, of course have to move the scope a bit in Dec to bring it to the exact center of your eyepiece field, but that does not affect the orthogonality in any way. How long did it take? Overall I was done in less than 15 minutes. Ideally a push-pull mechanism for the rear ring would have been very nice to have instead of using shims.

Once I had done that, the orthogonal error was pretty much gone, down to less than 15 - 20 arc seconds (about the width of Mars). The only thing now that might affect the East-West flip error is tube flex which on my scope is almost nothing. So, now I can flip sides and have the object land on the 8300 chip toward the center. Makes modeling a lot simpler too because the equations don't blow up near the pole.

Easy-Peasy and brilliant, no?

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: 'Wade Hilmo' y.groups@... [ap-gto]
To: ap-gto
Sent: Fri, Apr 12, 2019 9:12 am
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Mach2 mount - answers to questions



Polar alignment is no problem.  There are lots of ways to do that (I just read your pivot star method, and it sounds brilliant).
Fixing orthogonality in the scope is not what I would call “incredibly easy” for a scope like my C14, although I confess that I haven’t tried.  If I understand correctly, I need to be able to point the scope at a distant, fixed object.  This would be impossible at home, because there are trees no further than a couple hundred feet in every direction (and much closer in most directions).  I would have to do it out in the field, where I don’t have a good workspace to be able to shim the dovetail.  That’s why I would be happy to see this handled by the mount.
Thanks!
-Wade