1. main@ap-gto.groups.io
  2. Messages
   Date   
Re: CP's focuser port

Roland Christen
 

In a message dated 4/18/2008 12:47:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
daleg@... writes:


I know it's designed for the JMI microfocus, but I'd like some clarity
on its capabilities vis a vis focuser control.

It's not just there to provide power, correct? Could an attached JMI
focuser be controlled via the second RS232 port (say, if the mount
itself was controlled via RS232 port 1 and the focuser via RS232 port
2) Do I have this right?
Yes, the focus power is controlled via software commands. That is the way the
keypad communicates with the servo, and anything the keypad can do, you can
also do via the com ports. You can certainly send any command down one or both
ports - no need for a seperate port just for focusing, one port can handle all
commands at the same time.

The manual shows what the commands are for focus ( example :F+# advances,
:F-# retracts the motor, etc). There are commands for slow, fast and stop. If
your external software program has a routine for focusing, then it can send the
appropriate command string to the servo (no need for the keypad at all!), and
you can control a DC focus motor remotely.

Rolando


**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S.
used car listings at AOL Autos.

(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
Re: RA Axis Stiffness

Roland Christen
 

In a message dated 4/17/2008 1:49:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
hewholooks@... writes:


I noticed this on my new Mach1 as well. I had all the clutches
loose, and the axes moved smoothly, but had enough resistance that I
couldn't really be precise about the balance. Like you, I have had
no trouble with movenemt or guiding, however.
The Mach1 will be stiff with the clutches loose. We have always had that as a
"feature" because I believe in not allowing the axes of a GEM to swing
freely. It has to do with internal damping and resistance to wind load.

It is absolutely not necessary to perfectly balance any of our mounts. They
do not care one way or another which way you have balanced. I pay very little
attention to perfect balance, even on my permanently mounted setups. It is not
necessary. The motors are strong enough to pull an unbalanced load. It will
NOT affect guiding or tracking, contrary to popular belief.

Rolando


**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S.
used car listings at AOL Autos.

(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
Re: Mach1 GTO vs 900

Roland Christen
 

In a message dated 4/17/2008 7:08:32 AM Central Daylight Time, dean@...
writes:


I am hoping the Mach1 is enough for what I want to do. I will mount a E160
and FS60C guide scope, and along with camera,
No Problemo.

Rolando


**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S.
used car listings at AOL Autos.

(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
Counterweight carriers?

Morgan Spangle <msfainc@...>
 

I need a simple but effective way to carry my counterweights for the
600E, since I'll take it up to a dark sky site several times this
summer and I'll have to walk at least 200 yards to the observing site
from where I'll park (don't worry, I've started working out...). Any
good suggestions appreciated - usually carrying three weights, 2 9lbs,
one 6 lb.
I'll be at NEAF - do you think i might see something there that would
be useful for this purpose?
Thanks,
Morgan
Re: RA Axis Stiffness

Dean S
 

I have to admit my new 1200 is also way stiffer now than when I got it 4
months ago. I keep the knobs at a minimum tightness to just keep it from
slipping yet it is still very stiff.

Dean

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard" <howard@...>
To: <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:38 PM
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: RA Axis Stiffness


Hello Guys,



I believe we have two separate issues here. Dan, my guess is that your
clutch plugs have deformed inside the axis and need to be replaced.
We have instructions and more information in Tech Support on the
website. Look under 1200GTO and then Clutch Plug Replacement. You
can order a special tool and the plugs from us.

Hunter, the Mach1GTO uses a different system for the clutches, and also
has a different configuration for the axis bearings. The clutch knobs
on your Mach1GTO are spring loaded to a degree, so even though the knob
may feel loose, there is still friction being applied by the clutch
surfaces. Try loosening each clutch knob at least a full turn
"looser" than you think you should need to go, and then balance. I
think you'll find that the mount moves pretty easily once the clutches
are really and truly loose. I may need to do a better job of
explaining that in the next manual, but it is mentioned in the section
on balancing the scope.



Mag. 7 skies!



Howard Hedlund

Astro-Physics, Inc.

815-282-1513

________________________________

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...] On Behalf
Of hewholooks
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 1:50 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: RA Axis Stiffness



Dan,

I noticed this on my new Mach1 as well. I had all the clutches
loose, and the axes moved smoothly, but had enough resistance that I
couldn't really be precise about the balance. Like you, I have had
no trouble with movenemt or guiding, however.

This was about a month ago, and it was pretty cold out, so maybe
things have changed with the warmer weather.

Hunter

--- In ap-gto@... <mailto:ap-gto%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dan
Knauss" <dgknauss@...> wrote:

Recently I swapped out telescopes on my AP1200 mount and when
changing
counterweights and atttempting to blance the scope (with a slight
eastward
weight) found that the right ascension axis was very stiff. So
stiff that I
couldn't be sure of the balance. I don't have any problem with the
drive.
I never get a yellow light.

I have added light oil to the clutch screw holes and (with the
clutch
disengaged) moved the telescope in RA back and forth about 180
degrees. It
has helped a little but with the clutch screws loosened, it still
is quite
firm and all I can tell is that it is heavier on the counterweight
side than
the telescope side. Is this normal or is there something else I
should do?

Dan Knauss







------------------------------------

To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gtoYahoo! Groups Links
Re: Mach1 GTO vs 900

Bill Bradford
 

Another point that has not been discussed, is that the Mach1 breaks down to a 17 lb piece and an 11 lb piece.

That was the deciding factor for me, vs. getting the AP900. The 900 can be broken down but the lightest piece is about 26 lbs. Even that is too much for me.

So, if you have a requirement that the amount of weight you will lift is less than 20 lbs, the Mach1 seems to me to be the best choice.

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: Howard
To: ap-gto@...
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:28 AM
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Mach1 GTO vs 900


Hi Bjug and all,

I have just uploaded a photo to the files section of this group called
"Mach1GTO-900GTO-1200GTO.jpg" Please note that the photo shows an
older 1200GTO and the prototype Mach1GTO. The sizes have not changed,
so you should still be able to easily judge the difference between the
mounts.

There is another photo in the files section that Roland posted in the
folder - 3600 El Capitan. This is a photo taken in our showroom that
shows the whole family. Unfortunately for the question at hand, the
Mach1GTO and 900GTO are not shown as well as the 1200GTO or 3600GTO, but
it should still be helpful. The Mach1GTO and 900GTO are both on the
right.

Finally, check out the latitude-dimension-calc2.xls file, also in the
files section. It will give you some actual measurements based on your
latitude setting. You may find it useful for pier height selection as
well.

Mag. 7 skies!

Howard Hedlund

Astro-Physics, Inc.

815-282-1513

________________________________

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...] On Behalf
Of Bjug Borgundvaag
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:36 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] Mach1 GTO vs 900

I have been patiently waiting for my name to come up on either the Mach1
GTO or 900
lists, and am searching for some info comparing these two mounts. My
name has recently
come up on the 900 list, and now I am being forced to make a choice.

I think I understand the design (ability to channel cables through the
mount in the
Mach1), and payload capacity differences, but a key question I have
relates to physical size
of each. I have seen a Mach1 in person, only once, and recall thinking
that it was larger
than I expected (certainly compared to my puny GM-8). I have never seen
a 900, and
wonder how much larger is it? There are dimension diagrams on the AP
website for the
900, but not for the Mach1.

I live in a large city and have to travel by car to observe. I don't
foresee this changing
anytime soon. I presently have an AP130 F6 (hoping for a 140 one day).
So far, I have been
a strictly visual observer, but hope to try imaging in the future. I
know that a Mach1 is
quite well suited to my set up, and I believe that it would be fine for
imaging with my
present scope as well, but I don't know how long I am going to have to
wait to see one.

Anyone have experience carrying both of these mounts to remote observing
sites? Anyone
wishing that their 900 was a bit lighter to carry around and set up?

Thanks for your thoughts in advance.

Bjug
Ap 900 Case

Bruce Reuben
 

Any suggestions for a less expensive alternative case/s for the AP 900
mount?
Re: Mach1 GTO vs 900

Dean S
 

I am waiting for a Mach1 from this production run too. I have a 1200 I got
from last run and while it is a great mount, it also is more than I want to
deal with for short weekend imaging trips. The 1200 is in my observatory so
I hate to break it down for a couple nights, only then to have to set it up
again when I get home. For week long Star Parties it is worth it though.

I am hoping the Mach1 is enough for what I want to do. I will mount a E160
and FS60C guide scope, and along with camera, it will be a load for it.
Within specs but depending on how I will have to balance the DEC axis, I
could be pushing my luck.

However, I figure it will be easy to trade up to a 900 if I find I need the
little extra capacity as it seems like there are more wanting to go down in
size, than up.

But from what I hear so far, the Mach1 is a keeper regardless.

Dean
www.doghouseastronomy.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Lorenzi" <marcolorenzi70@...>
To: <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Mach1 GTO vs 900


Dear Bjug, I have both the mounts. I didn't have the chance to use the Mach1
since it arrived only last week and so far the weather always being bad but
even indoor it is a beautiful piece of hardware ^_^
The difference in size and weight is noticeable, if you are an itinerant
astronomer definitely the Mach1 makes a point. My intention is to use the
Mach1 when travelling and destinate the 900GTO on a permanent pier as I have
the chance to make it.
The main scope is also an issue. I am currently using a TEC140 and the Mach1
is more that adeguate for it. I would like to update in the future to a
300mm RC or Planewave and so the 900GTO will be a more suitable choice. In
that case however I will opt for a (semi)permanent installation since the
total weight to drag around begings to be quite important.
My suggestion is so to go for the Mach1
Clear Skies
Marco



----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: Bjug Borgundvaag <bjug@...>
A: ap-gto@...
Inviato: Giovedì 17 aprile 2008, 3:35:45
Oggetto: [ap-gto] Mach1 GTO vs 900

I have been patiently waiting for my name to come up on either the Mach1 GTO
or 900
lists, and am searching for some info comparing these two mounts. My name
has recently
come up on the 900 list, and now I am being forced to make a choice.

I think I understand the design (ability to channel cables through the mount
in the
Mach1), and payload capacity differences, but a key question I have relates
to physical size
of each. I have seen a Mach1 in person, only once, and recall thinking that
it was larger
than I expected (certainly compared to my puny GM-8). I have never seen a
900, and
wonder how much larger is it? There are dimension diagrams on the AP website
for the
900, but not for the Mach1.

I live in a large city and have to travel by car to observe. I don't foresee
this changing
anytime soon. I presently have an AP130 F6 (hoping for a 140 one day). So
far, I have been
a strictly visual observer, but hope to try imaging in the future. I know
that a Mach1 is
quite well suited to my set up, and I believe that it would be fine for
imaging with my
present scope as well, but I don't know how long I am going to have to wait
to see one.

Anyone have experience carrying both of these mounts to remote observing
sites? Anyone
wishing that their 900 was a bit lighter to carry around and set up?

Thanks for your thoughts in advance.

Bjug





Inviato da Yahoo! Mail.
La casella di posta intelligente.
http://it.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html




------------------------------------

To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gtoYahoo! Groups Links
Re: RA Axis Stiffness

hewholooks
 

Thanks Howard.

It wasn't really a problem, I just thought I would lend my experience
to the discussion.

I have had them pretty loose, but I will go looser next time and see.

Hunter

--- In ap-gto@..., "Howard" <howard@...> wrote:

Hello Guys,



I believe we have two separate issues here. Dan, my guess is that
your
clutch plugs have deformed inside the axis and need to be replaced.
We have instructions and more information in Tech Support on the
website. Look under 1200GTO and then Clutch Plug Replacement.
You
can order a special tool and the plugs from us.

Hunter, the Mach1GTO uses a different system for the clutches, and
also
has a different configuration for the axis bearings. The clutch
knobs
on your Mach1GTO are spring loaded to a degree, so even though the
knob
may feel loose, there is still friction being applied by the clutch
surfaces. Try loosening each clutch knob at least a full turn
"looser" than you think you should need to go, and then balance. I
think you'll find that the mount moves pretty easily once the
clutches
are really and truly loose. I may need to do a better job of
explaining that in the next manual, but it is mentioned in the
section
on balancing the scope.



Mag. 7 skies!



Howard Hedlund

Astro-Physics, Inc.

815-282-1513

________________________________

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...] On
Behalf
Of hewholooks
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 1:50 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: RA Axis Stiffness



Dan,

I noticed this on my new Mach1 as well. I had all the clutches
loose, and the axes moved smoothly, but had enough resistance that
I
couldn't really be precise about the balance. Like you, I have had
no trouble with movenemt or guiding, however.

This was about a month ago, and it was pretty cold out, so maybe
things have changed with the warmer weather.

Hunter

--- In ap-gto@... <mailto:ap-gto%
40yahoogroups.com> , "Dan
Knauss" <dgknauss@> wrote:

Recently I swapped out telescopes on my AP1200 mount and when
changing
counterweights and atttempting to blance the scope (with a slight
eastward
weight) found that the right ascension axis was very stiff. So
stiff that I
couldn't be sure of the balance. I don't have any problem with
the
drive.
I never get a yellow light.

I have added light oil to the clutch screw holes and (with the
clutch
disengaged) moved the telescope in RA back and forth about 180
degrees. It
has helped a little but with the clutch screws loosened, it still
is quite
firm and all I can tell is that it is heavier on the
counterweight
side than
the telescope side. Is this normal or is there something else I
should do?

Dan Knauss




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Mach1 GTO vs 900

kevin trotta
 

Obviously the 900 gives you more range, and in my opinion is a very portable mount. Given the choice of only having one, I would go with the 900 over the mach1 without hesitation. Having said that, I would love to own a Mach1 as well. And would happily provide free room and board for one! lol.

Dean S <dean@...> wrote: I am waiting for a Mach1 from this production run too. I have a 1200 I got
from last run and while it is a great mount, it also is more than I want to
deal with for short weekend imaging trips. The 1200 is in my observatory so
I hate to break it down for a couple nights, only then to have to set it up
again when I get home. For week long Star Parties it is worth it though.

I am hoping the Mach1 is enough for what I want to do. I will mount a E160
and FS60C guide scope, and along with camera, it will be a load for it.
Within specs but depending on how I will have to balance the DEC axis, I
could be pushing my luck.

However, I figure it will be easy to trade up to a 900 if I find I need the
little extra capacity as it seems like there are more wanting to go down in
size, than up.

But from what I hear so far, the Mach1 is a keeper regardless.

Dean
www.doghouseastronomy.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Lorenzi" <marcolorenzi70@...>
To: <ap-gto@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Mach1 GTO vs 900

Dear Bjug, I have both the mounts. I didn't have the chance to use the Mach1
since it arrived only last week and so far the weather always being bad but
even indoor it is a beautiful piece of hardware ^_^
The difference in size and weight is noticeable, if you are an itinerant
astronomer definitely the Mach1 makes a point. My intention is to use the
Mach1 when travelling and destinate the 900GTO on a permanent pier as I have
the chance to make it.
The main scope is also an issue. I am currently using a TEC140 and the Mach1
is more that adeguate for it. I would like to update in the future to a
300mm RC or Planewave and so the 900GTO will be a more suitable choice. In
that case however I will opt for a (semi)permanent installation since the
total weight to drag around begings to be quite important.
My suggestion is so to go for the Mach1
Clear Skies
Marco

----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: Bjug Borgundvaag <bjug@...>
A: ap-gto@...
Inviato: Giovedì 17 aprile 2008, 3:35:45
Oggetto: [ap-gto] Mach1 GTO vs 900

I have been patiently waiting for my name to come up on either the Mach1 GTO
or 900
lists, and am searching for some info comparing these two mounts. My name
has recently
come up on the 900 list, and now I am being forced to make a choice.

I think I understand the design (ability to channel cables through the mount
in the
Mach1), and payload capacity differences, but a key question I have relates
to physical size
of each. I have seen a Mach1 in person, only once, and recall thinking that
it was larger
than I expected (certainly compared to my puny GM-8). I have never seen a
900, and
wonder how much larger is it? There are dimension diagrams on the AP website
for the
900, but not for the Mach1.

I live in a large city and have to travel by car to observe. I don't foresee
this changing
anytime soon. I presently have an AP130 F6 (hoping for a 140 one day). So
far, I have been
a strictly visual observer, but hope to try imaging in the future. I know
that a Mach1 is
quite well suited to my set up, and I believe that it would be fine for
imaging with my
present scope as well, but I don't know how long I am going to have to wait
to see one.

Anyone have experience carrying both of these mounts to remote observing
sites? Anyone
wishing that their 900 was a bit lighter to carry around and set up?

Thanks for your thoughts in advance.

Bjug

Inviato da Yahoo! Mail.
La casella di posta intelligente.
http://it.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html



------------------------------------

To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gtoYahoo! Groups Links






---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Re: RA Axis Stiffness

Howard Hedlund
 

Hello Guys,



I believe we have two separate issues here. Dan, my guess is that your
clutch plugs have deformed inside the axis and need to be replaced.
We have instructions and more information in Tech Support on the
website. Look under 1200GTO and then Clutch Plug Replacement. You
can order a special tool and the plugs from us.

Hunter, the Mach1GTO uses a different system for the clutches, and also
has a different configuration for the axis bearings. The clutch knobs
on your Mach1GTO are spring loaded to a degree, so even though the knob
may feel loose, there is still friction being applied by the clutch
surfaces. Try loosening each clutch knob at least a full turn
"looser" than you think you should need to go, and then balance. I
think you'll find that the mount moves pretty easily once the clutches
are really and truly loose. I may need to do a better job of
explaining that in the next manual, but it is mentioned in the section
on balancing the scope.



Mag. 7 skies!



Howard Hedlund

Astro-Physics, Inc.

815-282-1513

________________________________

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...] On Behalf
Of hewholooks
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 1:50 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: RA Axis Stiffness



Dan,

I noticed this on my new Mach1 as well. I had all the clutches
loose, and the axes moved smoothly, but had enough resistance that I
couldn't really be precise about the balance. Like you, I have had
no trouble with movenemt or guiding, however.

This was about a month ago, and it was pretty cold out, so maybe
things have changed with the warmer weather.

Hunter

--- In ap-gto@... <mailto:ap-gto%40yahoogroups.com> , "Dan
Knauss" <dgknauss@...> wrote:

Recently I swapped out telescopes on my AP1200 mount and when
changing
counterweights and atttempting to blance the scope (with a slight
eastward
weight) found that the right ascension axis was very stiff. So
stiff that I
couldn't be sure of the balance. I don't have any problem with the
drive.
I never get a yellow light.

I have added light oil to the clutch screw holes and (with the
clutch
disengaged) moved the telescope in RA back and forth about 180
degrees. It
has helped a little but with the clutch screws loosened, it still
is quite
firm and all I can tell is that it is heavier on the counterweight
side than
the telescope side. Is this normal or is there something else I
should do?

Dan Knauss
Re: RA Axis Stiffness

hewholooks
 

Dan,

I noticed this on my new Mach1 as well. I had all the clutches
loose, and the axes moved smoothly, but had enough resistance that I
couldn't really be precise about the balance. Like you, I have had
no trouble with movenemt or guiding, however.

This was about a month ago, and it was pretty cold out, so maybe
things have changed with the warmer weather.

Hunter

--- In ap-gto@..., "Dan Knauss" <dgknauss@...> wrote:

Recently I swapped out telescopes on my AP1200 mount and when
changing
counterweights and atttempting to blance the scope (with a slight
eastward
weight) found that the right ascension axis was very stiff. So
stiff that I
couldn't be sure of the balance. I don't have any problem with the
drive.
I never get a yellow light.

I have added light oil to the clutch screw holes and (with the
clutch
disengaged) moved the telescope in RA back and forth about 180
degrees. It
has helped a little but with the clutch screws loosened, it still
is quite
firm and all I can tell is that it is heavier on the counterweight
side than
the telescope side. Is this normal or is there something else I
should do?

Dan Knauss
RA Axis Stiffness

Dan Knauss <dgknauss@...>
 

Recently I swapped out telescopes on my AP1200 mount and when changing counterweights and atttempting to blance the scope (with a slight eastward weight) found that the right ascension axis was very stiff. So stiff that I couldn't be sure of the balance. I don't have any problem with the drive. I never get a yellow light.

I have added light oil to the clutch screw holes and (with the clutch disengaged) moved the telescope in RA back and forth about 180 degrees. It has helped a little but with the clutch screws loosened, it still is quite firm and all I can tell is that it is heavier on the counterweight side than the telescope side. Is this normal or is there something else I should do?

Dan Knauss
Re: Mach1 GTO vs 900

Howard Hedlund
 

Hi Bjug and all,



I have just uploaded a photo to the files section of this group called
"Mach1GTO-900GTO-1200GTO.jpg" Please note that the photo shows an
older 1200GTO and the prototype Mach1GTO. The sizes have not changed,
so you should still be able to easily judge the difference between the
mounts.

There is another photo in the files section that Roland posted in the
folder - 3600 El Capitan. This is a photo taken in our showroom that
shows the whole family. Unfortunately for the question at hand, the
Mach1GTO and 900GTO are not shown as well as the 1200GTO or 3600GTO, but
it should still be helpful. The Mach1GTO and 900GTO are both on the
right.

Finally, check out the latitude-dimension-calc2.xls file, also in the
files section. It will give you some actual measurements based on your
latitude setting. You may find it useful for pier height selection as
well.



Mag. 7 skies!



Howard Hedlund

Astro-Physics, Inc.

815-282-1513

________________________________

From: ap-gto@... [mailto:ap-gto@...] On Behalf
Of Bjug Borgundvaag
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:36 PM
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: [ap-gto] Mach1 GTO vs 900



I have been patiently waiting for my name to come up on either the Mach1
GTO or 900
lists, and am searching for some info comparing these two mounts. My
name has recently
come up on the 900 list, and now I am being forced to make a choice.

I think I understand the design (ability to channel cables through the
mount in the
Mach1), and payload capacity differences, but a key question I have
relates to physical size
of each. I have seen a Mach1 in person, only once, and recall thinking
that it was larger
than I expected (certainly compared to my puny GM-8). I have never seen
a 900, and
wonder how much larger is it? There are dimension diagrams on the AP
website for the
900, but not for the Mach1.

I live in a large city and have to travel by car to observe. I don't
foresee this changing
anytime soon. I presently have an AP130 F6 (hoping for a 140 one day).
So far, I have been
a strictly visual observer, but hope to try imaging in the future. I
know that a Mach1 is
quite well suited to my set up, and I believe that it would be fine for
imaging with my
present scope as well, but I don't know how long I am going to have to
wait to see one.

Anyone have experience carrying both of these mounts to remote observing
sites? Anyone
wishing that their 900 was a bit lighter to carry around and set up?

Thanks for your thoughts in advance.

Bjug
Re: Cabling (Again)

Bob Olson <r.olson@...>
 

Hi Bill,

I don't think it is a good idea to run cables directly from the camera. Hop them back to the mount and then down. This will really cut down on camera flex. This is especially important if you are using a guide scope. See the AP1200 mount manual, pages 23 and 24 for examples. You can add an extension to the mounting plate to swing the wires wide of all knobs and controls if necessary.

http://www.astro-physics.com/tech_support/mounts/1200-GTOCP3-033007-web.pdf

Bob
New file uploaded to ap-gto

ap-gto@...
 

Hello,

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

File : /Mach1-900-1200.jpg
Uploaded by : howard4ap <howard@...>
Description : Mach1GTO-900GTO-1200GTO Size Comparison (Prototype Mach1!)

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto/files/Mach1-900-1200.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

howard4ap <howard@...>
Re: RA Axis Stiffness

Kent Kirkley
 

In a message dated 4/17/08 1:45:43 PM, dgknauss@... writes:


    Recently I swapped out telescopes on my AP1200 mount and when changing
counterweights and atttempting to blance the scope (with a slight eastward
weight) found that the right ascension axis was very stiff.  So stiff that I
couldn't be sure of the balance.  I don't have any problem with the drive.
I never get a yellow light.

    I have added light oil to the clutch screw holes and (with the clutch
disengaged) moved the telescope in RA back and forth about 180 degrees.  It
has helped a little but with the clutch screws loosened, it still is quite
firm and all I can tell is that it is heavier on the counterweight side than
the telescope side.   Is this normal or is there something else I should do?
Dan:
This is normal for the newer 1200's.
I had the same problem and even ordered new clutch plugs and the rmoval tool.
After installing new clutch plugs the stiffness was the same.
I then called AP and they confirmed that the stiffness is normal.
So much for new clutch plugs??

Kent Kirkley


**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for
U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.

(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
Re: Cabling (Again)

Poschinger Konstantin v. <KPoschinger@...>
 

Hi Bill,

here you can see a flexible cable tube: http://web.mac.com/poschinger/Asto_Bilder/Murnau_Juni_2006.html#14

When you bend it more to the center there is no trouble with guiding.

Konstantin


Konstantin v. Poschinger

Hammerichstr. 5
22605 Hamburg
040/8805747
01711983476

Am 17.04.2008 um 16:15 schrieb Bill Gardner:

I know this is an issue that is raised from time to time, but I wonder
if I might be able to get some suggestions on how best to deal with my
cable setup.

You can see an image as it is currently at:
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/b_omarr/Scope/IMG_2531.jpg

Normally, I have had it all looped to and attached to the pier plates,
but I undid it just before taking this picture, as I was installing a
new guider and its associated cable.

Cables in the bundle are:
1. Two USB cables (ST10/DSI guider)
2. SBIG power cable (ac block visible on wooden shelf). Would an
extension be useful? Does it work?
3. Guider cable to mount.
4. RF ribbon.

You can also see that I have two serial cables plugged into the mount
so I can use multiple applications with no fuss.

Thanks,

Bill
Cabling (Again)

Bill Gardner <gardner.w@...>
 

I know this is an issue that is raised from time to time, but I wonder
if I might be able to get some suggestions on how best to deal with my
cable setup.

You can see an image as it is currently at:
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/b_omarr/Scope/IMG_2531.jpg

Normally, I have had it all looped to and attached to the pier plates,
but I undid it just before taking this picture, as I was installing a
new guider and its associated cable.

Cables in the bundle are:
1. Two USB cables (ST10/DSI guider)
2. SBIG power cable (ac block visible on wooden shelf). Would an
extension be useful? Does it work?
3. Guider cable to mount.
4. RF ribbon.

You can also see that I have two serial cables plugged into the mount
so I can use multiple applications with no fuss.

Thanks,

Bill
Re: Autoguider settings for PemProAP

Luca <darknrg@...>
 

Hello Ray and thanks again for the advice: I guess I had it all wrong! I'll
go back and read the instructions again. I had used the autoguider function
when recording the PE with the feature built in the keypad, but I guess that
is another thing.

Ciao

Luca

-------Original Message-------

From: Ray Gralak
Date: 17/04/2008 4.45.30
To: ap-gto@...
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Re: Autoguider settings for PemProAP

Thanks for the help, but I still would need to know if setting the
aggressiveness to 10 is correct and also if you suggest to
have a delay
between individual guiding exposures (my 2 original
questions) and, if so, how much delay.
Luca, when using PEMPro you should NOT autoguide on a star. PEMPro passively
records the position of the star when acquiring data.

Maybe you are thinking of the feature of PEMPro that can playback a PE curve
via the autoguider port or serial commands to the mount? That feature is not
needed with mounts equipped with the GTOCP3 because a PEC curve can be
directly uploaded.

-Ray
66761 - 66780 of 88273