Date   

Re: Mount is "lost"

Michael Hamburg
 

Thanks for the reply. So far I have been happy with my Canon 6D.

Best wishes, Michael


On Thursday, June 4, 2020, 01:54:27 PM EDT, willsonjared via groups.io <willsonjared@...> wrote:


I suspect your mount initially got “lost” because of the differences between a sync and a recal.  You mentioned using the meridian delay function. This is where people occasionally get into trouble on the differences between the two. Look through the user manual—I seem to recall it does a good job of explaining the difference and how to use them effectively.

As to the current pointing issues... You have a lot of focal length in your SCT, a movable primary mirror, and it sounds like you have not yet done a careful polar alignment. I would start there—doing the careful polar alignment. It won’t change the fact that you have a movable primary and a lot of focal length, but it will improve things. 

Long term, though, you may always have challenges with pointing accuracy. Between the focal length (which results in a small field of view), atmospheric refraction, mechanical imperfections in the mount, flexure, and, especially, the shifting primary it may not be possible for slews to always put your subject in the field of view.  You could look at building a solid pointing model using APCC Pro (not free), but you would need some way to do plate solves, and I’m not sure that is possible with a DSLR. Someone else may have relevant experience on that. Were you planning on sticking with the SLR?


Re: Leaving counterweights on empty mount

Joseph Beyer
 

Thanks Suresh.  That’s been my procedure as well.  I’ll be leaving the counterweights in place in the future. 

On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:48 PM, Suresh Mohan <drsureshmohan@...> wrote:

Mount no issue , here in india the hot summer day temp hovers over 100 and so I remove the scope only in park 3 position though I cover it 
Note : I remove the HC also
Suresh


On 05-Jun-2020, at 1:01 AM, Joseph Beyer <jcbeyer2001@...> wrote:


Got it, thanks. 

On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:12 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:


Yes, IMPORTANT: Only in Park2 or Park3 as Michael said.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hambrick via groups.io <mike.hambrick@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Leaving counterweights on empty mount

It is probably better to get a definitive answer from George or Roland, but I think from Park 2 or Park 3 it should be OK to leave the counterweights on. In these positions the weights should not be trying to put any turning force on the RA gear.

<Untitled>
<Untitled>



Best Regards

Michael Hambrick
ARLANXEO
TSR Global Manufacturing Support
PO Box 2000
Orange, TX 77631-2000
Phone: +1 (409) 882-2799
email: mike.hambrick@...
<Untitled>
<Untitled>


Re: Leaving counterweights on empty mount

Suresh Mohan
 

Mount no issue , here in india the hot summer day temp hovers over 100 and so I remove the scope only in park 3 position though I cover it 
Note : I remove the HC also
Suresh


On 05-Jun-2020, at 1:01 AM, Joseph Beyer <jcbeyer2001@...> wrote:


Got it, thanks. 

On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:12 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:


Yes, IMPORTANT: Only in Park2 or Park3 as Michael said.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hambrick via groups.io <mike.hambrick@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Leaving counterweights on empty mount

It is probably better to get a definitive answer from George or Roland, but I think from Park 2 or Park 3 it should be OK to leave the counterweights on. In these positions the weights should not be trying to put any turning force on the RA gear.

<Untitled>
<Untitled>



Best Regards

Michael Hambrick
ARLANXEO
TSR Global Manufacturing Support
PO Box 2000
Orange, TX 77631-2000
Phone: +1 (409) 882-2799
email: mike.hambrick@...
<Untitled>
<Untitled>


Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

David Fischer
 

So would the ripple magnitude depend fairly directly upon the details of step rate, motor step size, belt characteristics, motor holding strength ?
Is this the sort of thing that mount design engineers analyze at design time ?

-- David F.


On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:09 PM uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

yes please! i would like to see

Ok, see below. Sorry for the poor quality screen shots. I took them with my camera aimed at the screen ;^)).

Top image is the raw periodic error of a typical microstepper driving a precision worm. You might think the worm is not great, but the reality is that the two pulleys have runout and produce the majority of the large scale periodic error. The worm itself actually has only about 2 arc sec error. The rest is caused by the commercial pulleys which have a fair amount of runout. This is basically what you get in almost all imported non-encoder mounts that use belts and microsteppers.

The plot is taken at 100msec sample rate so you can see what is really happening during a typical worm cycle. Normally when you see a PE curve, the sample rate is 10 times slower, so you don't see the fast moving errors on PE data sheets.

The real issue is not the large scale PE, which can be handled by guiding (as long as it is slow moving and not too large an excursion). It is the fast moving errors at the 1 arc sec level that cause problems for guiders. The second plot shows in detail that microsteppers with belts have two fast moving errors. The belt teeth cause a ripple every few seconds (in this case once every 12 seconds at approx 1 arc sec P-P). If your guiding cadence is fast enough you might be able to guide it out successfully. However, if your guide rate approaches once every 3 - 4 seconds, you will see a residual error that modulates with time.

The faster moving error repeats every 2 seconds with another 1 arc-sec P-P error. This one cannot be easily guided out because the guider is always a step behind and can actually amplify this motion. The error is caused by the stepper motor itself which has 5% angle variation for each winding step point. If your camera pixel scale is 2 - 4 arc sec per pixel, you may not see these kinds of errors. If your guider is exposing at 2 - 3 seconds, the guide graph will average out the tiny fast motions and will record perhaps very low rms values. However, the stars that you are recording on your imaging camera are doing this tiny back and forth dance in RA and slightly smearing the resolution of your image.

The third graph below shows how the absolute encoder tames all three errors.







Re : Re: [ap-gto] APCC 1.8.3.1 old settings are missing

Yves Laroche
 

Thanks Ray, it worked !!!

Yves



Le 04/06/20 21:34, Ray Gralak <groups3@...> a écrit :
Don't know why that's happening on your particular computer,  but APCC maintains a backups folder with settings files here:

C:\ProgramData\Astro-Physics\APCC\Backups

-Ray Gralak
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): https://www.astro-physics.com/apcc-pro
Author of PEMPro V3:  https://www.ccdware.com
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver

> -----Original Message-----
> From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Yves Laroche
> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 6:25 PM
> To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
> Subject: Re : [ap-gto] APCC 1.8.3.1 old settings are missing
>
> Is there a way to transform the old settings file to a new compatible one ?
>
> Yves
>
>
> Le 04/06/20 21:12, Yves Laroche <yves.laroche@...> a écrit :
>
>  Hi Ray,
>
>  With the installation  of version APCC 1.8.3.1 all my settings are gone.  I renamed the file Settings.apdb to
> Settings.apcc and moved it to C:\ProgramData\Astro-Physics\APCC because it seemed that you moved that file but at
> each time I opened APCC the file Settings.apcc is replaced by a new one.
>
>  Regards,
>  Yves
>
>





Re: APCC 1.8.3.1 old settings are missing

Ray Gralak
 

Don't know why that's happening on your particular computer, but APCC maintains a backups folder with settings files here:

C:\ProgramData\Astro-Physics\APCC\Backups

-Ray Gralak
Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): https://www.astro-physics.com/apcc-pro
Author of PEMPro V3: https://www.ccdware.com
Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver

-----Original Message-----
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Yves Laroche
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 6:25 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re : [ap-gto] APCC 1.8.3.1 old settings are missing

Is there a way to transform the old settings file to a new compatible one ?

Yves


Le 04/06/20 21:12, Yves Laroche <yves.laroche@videotron.ca> a écrit :

Hi Ray,

With the installation of version APCC 1.8.3.1 all my settings are gone. I renamed the file Settings.apdb to
Settings.apcc and moved it to C:\ProgramData\Astro-Physics\APCC because it seemed that you moved that file but at
each time I opened APCC the file Settings.apcc is replaced by a new one.

Regards,
Yves


Re : [ap-gto] APCC 1.8.3.1 old settings are missing

Yves Laroche
 

Is there a way to transform the old settings file to a new compatible one ?

Yves


Le 04/06/20 21:12, Yves Laroche <yves.laroche@...> a écrit :
Hi Ray,

With the installation  of version APCC 1.8.3.1 all my settings are gone.  I renamed the file Settings.apdb to Settings.apcc and moved it to C:\ProgramData\Astro-Physics\APCC because it seemed that you moved that file but at each time I opened APCC the file Settings.apcc is replaced by a new one.

Regards,
Yves


APCC 1.8.3.1 old settings are missing

Yves Laroche
 

Hi Ray,

With the installation  of version APCC 1.8.3.1 all my settings are gone.  I renamed the file Settings.apdb to Settings.apcc and moved it to C:\ProgramData\Astro-Physics\APCC because it seemed that you moved that file but at each time I opened APCC the file Settings.apcc is replaced by a new one.

Regards,
Yves


Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Roland Christen
 


yes please! i would like to see

Ok, see below. Sorry for the poor quality screen shots. I took them with my camera aimed at the screen ;^)).

Top image is the raw periodic error of a typical microstepper driving a precision worm. You might think the worm is not great, but the reality is that the two pulleys have runout and produce the majority of the large scale periodic error. The worm itself actually has only about 2 arc sec error. The rest is caused by the commercial pulleys which have a fair amount of runout. This is basically what you get in almost all imported non-encoder mounts that use belts and microsteppers.

The plot is taken at 100msec sample rate so you can see what is really happening during a typical worm cycle. Normally when you see a PE curve, the sample rate is 10 times slower, so you don't see the fast moving errors on PE data sheets.

The real issue is not the large scale PE, which can be handled by guiding (as long as it is slow moving and not too large an excursion). It is the fast moving errors at the 1 arc sec level that cause problems for guiders. The second plot shows in detail that microsteppers with belts have two fast moving errors. The belt teeth cause a ripple every few seconds (in this case once every 12 seconds at approx 1 arc sec P-P). If your guiding cadence is fast enough you might be able to guide it out successfully. However, if your guide rate approaches once every 3 - 4 seconds, you will see a residual error that modulates with time.

The faster moving error repeats every 2 seconds with another 1 arc-sec P-P error. This one cannot be easily guided out because the guider is always a step behind and can actually amplify this motion. The error is caused by the stepper motor itself which has 5% angle variation for each winding step point. If your camera pixel scale is 2 - 4 arc sec per pixel, you may not see these kinds of errors. If your guider is exposing at 2 - 3 seconds, the guide graph will average out the tiny fast motions and will record perhaps very low rms values. However, the stars that you are recording on your imaging camera are doing this tiny back and forth dance in RA and slightly smearing the resolution of your image.

The third graph below shows how the absolute encoder tames all three errors.







Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

DFisch
 

Rolando, thanks for the instruction.  i have an 1100 mount and lost the step in my thinking where disengaging the clutches loses the encoder feedback as to where they are constructed and installed on the mount.  When i was imagining "no lost position” with an upgrade to my already excellent 1100 to AE i forgot the fundamental difference of the new design.  no harm in dreaming.   i love your analogic comparison of the difference in the type of “noise” generated by the two types of drive systems. The differences in the mach2 with AE vs. 1100 AE wont be lost on me again.  Tom 

On Jun 4, 2020, at 4:46 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:

The 1100 AE is more accurate, heavier construction, larger gearwheel and has hollow axes so you can run your own cables. Although it has clutches, the mount will not keep track of pointing while they are loose and you move the scope manually.

The 1100 has precision spur gear reduction and high speed servo motors, not belts and microsteppers. Belts and microsteppers are only accurate to arc sec levels when combined with absolute encoders on the shafts. Precision spur gears and Swiss servo motors can provide smooth arc sec level tracking, without AE, when you have a good PE correction curve.

Speaking of inexpensive mounts with steppers and belt drives:
Microsteppers with belts are audibly quiet but mechanically noisy (precision gears are audibly noisy but mechanically smooth). Have you ever seen what the periodic error looks like with a microstepper running a belt drive? Do you think it is smooth and accurate? Would you like to see?

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: DFisch <manusfisch@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 31, 2020 2:49 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Rolando, how many of these features would be available to the 1100 after AE upgrade (notwithstanding the mechanical features).  How close would the similarities be on guiding and modeling .  Tom

On Jun 4, 2020, at 2:58 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:

Besides the encoders eliminating PE, the Mach2 brings the ability to move the mount manually during visual sweeping of the skies without losing position. It also allows critical balance to be achieved without backing the worm off the wormwheel and possibly damaging the worm teeth in the process, if done wrong. The base of the mount has been widened for better stability. Internally the heavy shaft sits farther between the bearings for increased stability over the Mach1.

The absolute encoders are mapped so that the precision tracking and pointing is maintained over the entire 360 degree axis motion. Relative encoders can theoretically eliminate PE, but generally introduce sub-divisional error (SDE). Relative encoders cannot be mapped at the factory against a known standard lab encoder since they do not have individual distinct position information. So the tracking accuracy may contain no periodic error component, but will inevitably have large drift component due to encoder disc runout. The Renishaw RESA encoder system has some 64 million distinct positions which are carefully mapped in our initial test and setup routine here at AP. The data is then transferred to the CP5 where it is stored and used to provide precise tracking and positioning to the axes at every point in the rotation of the axes.

To sum up the Mach2:

Mount has clutches that allow precise balancing of the axes.

Clutches can be loosened for manual sweeping of the mount during visual observing with no loss of position.

The gearbox uses belt drive for quiet operation along with brushless microstepper motors

The motors are oversized to provide high torque, the belts are heavy duty.

Precision Absolute encoders eliminate periodic error during sidereal or custom tracking

The encoders are mapped over 360 degrees to provide precise positioning and tracking over the entire rotation

The mount base has been strengthened for lower vibration and better damping of heavy loads.

Modern feed-forward encoder control loop produces quick response to external forces and produces a stiffer mount

Both axes can be driven accurately at custom and variable rates for unguided imaging with modeling

Rolando






-----Original Message-----
From: willsonjared via groups.io <willsonjared@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

For me, this feature will be the difference between a Mach2 being, “cool, but don’t really see a reason to upgrade from my Mach1” and being, “Wow, that would make it easy to bring a system into the field without needing to guide!”  Well done.  I can now see myself replacing my Mach1 at some point in the future which is something I couldn’t have imagined when the Mach2 was announced.



Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Bill Long
 

+1 for this. Sounds interesting. 🙂 


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Brian Valente <bvalente@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 1:51 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies
 
>> Have you ever seen what the periodic error looks like with a microstepper running a belt drive? Do you think it is smooth and accurate? Would you like to see?

yes please! i would like to see

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:46 PM uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
The 1100 AE is more accurate, heavier construction, larger gearwheel and has hollow axes so you can run your own cables. Although it has clutches, the mount will not keep track of pointing while they are loose and you move the scope manually.

The 1100 has precision spur gear reduction and high speed servo motors, not belts and microsteppers. Belts and microsteppers are only accurate to arc sec levels when combined with absolute encoders on the shafts. Precision spur gears and Swiss servo motors can provide smooth arc sec level tracking, without AE, when you have a good PE correction curve.

Speaking of inexpensive mounts with steppers and belt drives:
Microsteppers with belts are audibly quiet but mechanically noisy (precision gears are audibly noisy but mechanically smooth). Have you ever seen what the periodic error looks like with a microstepper running a belt drive? Do you think it is smooth and accurate? Would you like to see?

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: DFisch <manusfisch@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 31, 2020 2:49 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Rolando, how many of these features would be available to the 1100 after AE upgrade (notwithstanding the mechanical features).  How close would the similarities be on guiding and modeling .  Tom

On Jun 4, 2020, at 2:58 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:

Besides the encoders eliminating PE, the Mach2 brings the ability to move the mount manually during visual sweeping of the skies without losing position. It also allows critical balance to be achieved without backing the worm off the wormwheel and possibly damaging the worm teeth in the process, if done wrong. The base of the mount has been widened for better stability. Internally the heavy shaft sits farther between the bearings for increased stability over the Mach1.

The absolute encoders are mapped so that the precision tracking and pointing is maintained over the entire 360 degree axis motion. Relative encoders can theoretically eliminate PE, but generally introduce sub-divisional error (SDE). Relative encoders cannot be mapped at the factory against a known standard lab encoder since they do not have individual distinct position information. So the tracking accuracy may contain no periodic error component, but will inevitably have large drift component due to encoder disc runout. The Renishaw RESA encoder system has some 64 million distinct positions which are carefully mapped in our initial test and setup routine here at AP. The data is then transferred to the CP5 where it is stored and used to provide precise tracking and positioning to the axes at every point in the rotation of the axes.

To sum up the Mach2:

Mount has clutches that allow precise balancing of the axes.

Clutches can be loosened for manual sweeping of the mount during visual observing with no loss of position.

The gearbox uses belt drive for quiet operation along with brushless microstepper motors

The motors are oversized to provide high torque, the belts are heavy duty.

Precision Absolute encoders eliminate periodic error during sidereal or custom tracking

The encoders are mapped over 360 degrees to provide precise positioning and tracking over the entire rotation

The mount base has been strengthened for lower vibration and better damping of heavy loads.

Modern feed-forward encoder control loop produces quick response to external forces and produces a stiffer mount

Both axes can be driven accurately at custom and variable rates for unguided imaging with modeling

Rolando






-----Original Message-----
From: willsonjared via groups.io <willsonjared@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

For me, this feature will be the difference between a Mach2 being, “cool, but don’t really see a reason to upgrade from my Mach1” and being, “Wow, that would make it easy to bring a system into the field without needing to guide!”  Well done.  I can now see myself replacing my Mach1 at some point in the future which is something I couldn’t have imagined when the Mach2 was announced.



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

 

>> Have you ever seen what the periodic error looks like with a microstepper running a belt drive? Do you think it is smooth and accurate? Would you like to see?

yes please! i would like to see

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:46 PM uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
The 1100 AE is more accurate, heavier construction, larger gearwheel and has hollow axes so you can run your own cables. Although it has clutches, the mount will not keep track of pointing while they are loose and you move the scope manually.

The 1100 has precision spur gear reduction and high speed servo motors, not belts and microsteppers. Belts and microsteppers are only accurate to arc sec levels when combined with absolute encoders on the shafts. Precision spur gears and Swiss servo motors can provide smooth arc sec level tracking, without AE, when you have a good PE correction curve.

Speaking of inexpensive mounts with steppers and belt drives:
Microsteppers with belts are audibly quiet but mechanically noisy (precision gears are audibly noisy but mechanically smooth). Have you ever seen what the periodic error looks like with a microstepper running a belt drive? Do you think it is smooth and accurate? Would you like to see?

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: DFisch <manusfisch@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 31, 2020 2:49 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Rolando, how many of these features would be available to the 1100 after AE upgrade (notwithstanding the mechanical features).  How close would the similarities be on guiding and modeling .  Tom

On Jun 4, 2020, at 2:58 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:

Besides the encoders eliminating PE, the Mach2 brings the ability to move the mount manually during visual sweeping of the skies without losing position. It also allows critical balance to be achieved without backing the worm off the wormwheel and possibly damaging the worm teeth in the process, if done wrong. The base of the mount has been widened for better stability. Internally the heavy shaft sits farther between the bearings for increased stability over the Mach1.

The absolute encoders are mapped so that the precision tracking and pointing is maintained over the entire 360 degree axis motion. Relative encoders can theoretically eliminate PE, but generally introduce sub-divisional error (SDE). Relative encoders cannot be mapped at the factory against a known standard lab encoder since they do not have individual distinct position information. So the tracking accuracy may contain no periodic error component, but will inevitably have large drift component due to encoder disc runout. The Renishaw RESA encoder system has some 64 million distinct positions which are carefully mapped in our initial test and setup routine here at AP. The data is then transferred to the CP5 where it is stored and used to provide precise tracking and positioning to the axes at every point in the rotation of the axes.

To sum up the Mach2:

Mount has clutches that allow precise balancing of the axes.

Clutches can be loosened for manual sweeping of the mount during visual observing with no loss of position.

The gearbox uses belt drive for quiet operation along with brushless microstepper motors

The motors are oversized to provide high torque, the belts are heavy duty.

Precision Absolute encoders eliminate periodic error during sidereal or custom tracking

The encoders are mapped over 360 degrees to provide precise positioning and tracking over the entire rotation

The mount base has been strengthened for lower vibration and better damping of heavy loads.

Modern feed-forward encoder control loop produces quick response to external forces and produces a stiffer mount

Both axes can be driven accurately at custom and variable rates for unguided imaging with modeling

Rolando






-----Original Message-----
From: willsonjared via groups.io <willsonjared@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

For me, this feature will be the difference between a Mach2 being, “cool, but don’t really see a reason to upgrade from my Mach1” and being, “Wow, that would make it easy to bring a system into the field without needing to guide!”  Well done.  I can now see myself replacing my Mach1 at some point in the future which is something I couldn’t have imagined when the Mach2 was announced.



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Roland Christen
 

The 1100 AE is more accurate, heavier construction, larger gearwheel and has hollow axes so you can run your own cables. Although it has clutches, the mount will not keep track of pointing while they are loose and you move the scope manually.

The 1100 has precision spur gear reduction and high speed servo motors, not belts and microsteppers. Belts and microsteppers are only accurate to arc sec levels when combined with absolute encoders on the shafts. Precision spur gears and Swiss servo motors can provide smooth arc sec level tracking, without AE, when you have a good PE correction curve.

Speaking of inexpensive mounts with steppers and belt drives:
Microsteppers with belts are audibly quiet but mechanically noisy (precision gears are audibly noisy but mechanically smooth). Have you ever seen what the periodic error looks like with a microstepper running a belt drive? Do you think it is smooth and accurate? Would you like to see?

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: DFisch <manusfisch@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 31, 2020 2:49 am
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Rolando, how many of these features would be available to the 1100 after AE upgrade (notwithstanding the mechanical features).  How close would the similarities be on guiding and modeling .  Tom

On Jun 4, 2020, at 2:58 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:

Besides the encoders eliminating PE, the Mach2 brings the ability to move the mount manually during visual sweeping of the skies without losing position. It also allows critical balance to be achieved without backing the worm off the wormwheel and possibly damaging the worm teeth in the process, if done wrong. The base of the mount has been widened for better stability. Internally the heavy shaft sits farther between the bearings for increased stability over the Mach1.

The absolute encoders are mapped so that the precision tracking and pointing is maintained over the entire 360 degree axis motion. Relative encoders can theoretically eliminate PE, but generally introduce sub-divisional error (SDE). Relative encoders cannot be mapped at the factory against a known standard lab encoder since they do not have individual distinct position information. So the tracking accuracy may contain no periodic error component, but will inevitably have large drift component due to encoder disc runout. The Renishaw RESA encoder system has some 64 million distinct positions which are carefully mapped in our initial test and setup routine here at AP. The data is then transferred to the CP5 where it is stored and used to provide precise tracking and positioning to the axes at every point in the rotation of the axes.

To sum up the Mach2:

Mount has clutches that allow precise balancing of the axes.

Clutches can be loosened for manual sweeping of the mount during visual observing with no loss of position.

The gearbox uses belt drive for quiet operation along with brushless microstepper motors

The motors are oversized to provide high torque, the belts are heavy duty.

Precision Absolute encoders eliminate periodic error during sidereal or custom tracking

The encoders are mapped over 360 degrees to provide precise positioning and tracking over the entire rotation

The mount base has been strengthened for lower vibration and better damping of heavy loads.

Modern feed-forward encoder control loop produces quick response to external forces and produces a stiffer mount

Both axes can be driven accurately at custom and variable rates for unguided imaging with modeling

Rolando






-----Original Message-----
From: willsonjared via groups.io <willsonjared@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

For me, this feature will be the difference between a Mach2 being, “cool, but don’t really see a reason to upgrade from my Mach1” and being, “Wow, that would make it easy to bring a system into the field without needing to guide!”  Well done.  I can now see myself replacing my Mach1 at some point in the future which is something I couldn’t have imagined when the Mach2 was announced.


Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

DFisch
 

Rolando, how many of these features would be available to the 1100 after AE upgrade (notwithstanding the mechanical features).  How close would the similarities be on guiding and modeling .  Tom

On Jun 4, 2020, at 2:58 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:

Besides the encoders eliminating PE, the Mach2 brings the ability to move the mount manually during visual sweeping of the skies without losing position. It also allows critical balance to be achieved without backing the worm off the wormwheel and possibly damaging the worm teeth in the process, if done wrong. The base of the mount has been widened for better stability. Internally the heavy shaft sits farther between the bearings for increased stability over the Mach1.

The absolute encoders are mapped so that the precision tracking and pointing is maintained over the entire 360 degree axis motion. Relative encoders can theoretically eliminate PE, but generally introduce sub-divisional error (SDE). Relative encoders cannot be mapped at the factory against a known standard lab encoder since they do not have individual distinct position information. So the tracking accuracy may contain no periodic error component, but will inevitably have large drift component due to encoder disc runout. The Renishaw RESA encoder system has some 64 million distinct positions which are carefully mapped in our initial test and setup routine here at AP. The data is then transferred to the CP5 where it is stored and used to provide precise tracking and positioning to the axes at every point in the rotation of the axes.

To sum up the Mach2:

Mount has clutches that allow precise balancing of the axes.

Clutches can be loosened for manual sweeping of the mount during visual observing with no loss of position.

The gearbox uses belt drive for quiet operation along with brushless microstepper motors

The motors are oversized to provide high torque, the belts are heavy duty.

Precision Absolute encoders eliminate periodic error during sidereal or custom tracking

The encoders are mapped over 360 degrees to provide precise positioning and tracking over the entire rotation

The mount base has been strengthened for lower vibration and better damping of heavy loads.

Modern feed-forward encoder control loop produces quick response to external forces and produces a stiffer mount

Both axes can be driven accurately at custom and variable rates for unguided imaging with modeling

Rolando






-----Original Message-----
From: willsonjared via groups.io <willsonjared@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

For me, this feature will be the difference between a Mach2 being, “cool, but don’t really see a reason to upgrade from my Mach1” and being, “Wow, that would make it easy to bring a system into the field without needing to guide!”  Well done.  I can now see myself replacing my Mach1 at some point in the future which is something I couldn’t have imagined when the Mach2 was announced.


Re: Leaving counterweights on empty mount

Joseph Beyer
 

Got it, thanks. 

On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:12 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:


Yes, IMPORTANT: Only in Park2 or Park3 as Michael said.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hambrick via groups.io <mike.hambrick@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Leaving counterweights on empty mount

It is probably better to get a definitive answer from George or Roland, but I think from Park 2 or Park 3 it should be OK to leave the counterweights on. In these positions the weights should not be trying to put any turning force on the RA gear.

<Untitled>
<Untitled>



Best Regards

Michael Hambrick
ARLANXEO
TSR Global Manufacturing Support
PO Box 2000
Orange, TX 77631-2000
Phone: +1 (409) 882-2799
email: mike.hambrick@...
<Untitled>
<Untitled>


Re: Leaving counterweights on empty mount

Roland Christen
 

Yes, IMPORTANT: Only in Park2 or Park3 as Michael said.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hambrick via groups.io <mike.hambrick@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Leaving counterweights on empty mount

It is probably better to get a definitive answer from George or Roland, but I think from Park 2 or Park 3 it should be OK to leave the counterweights on. In these positions the weights should not be trying to put any turning force on the RA gear.




Best Regards

Michael Hambrick
ARLANXEO
TSR Global Manufacturing Support
PO Box 2000
Orange, TX 77631-2000
Phone: +1 (409) 882-2799
email: mike.hambrick@...


Re: Leaving counterweights on empty mount

Roland Christen
 

Yes, you can leave the weights on. It won't make any difference to the mount. I do it all the time.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Beyer <jcbeyer2001@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 1:27 pm
Subject: [ap-gto] Leaving counterweights on empty mount

Hello everyone,

I leave my Mach1/FSQ-106 set up for several days at a time, covering it during the day.  When the temperatures extend into the high 90s - low 100s I will often remove the scope and reinstall at night.  I counter balance the scope with 3 x 9lb weights and 2 x 6lb weights.  My usual method is to pull all of them off the empty mount.  Is it reasonable to leave any of the weights on the mount with no scope during the day?   

Joe   


Re: Leaving counterweights on empty mount

Michael Hambrick <mike.hambrick@...>
 

It is probably better to get a definitive answer from George or Roland, but I think from Park 2 or Park 3 it should be OK to leave the counterweights on. In these positions the weights should not be trying to put any turning force on the RA gear.




Best Regards

Michael Hambrick
ARLANXEO
TSR Global Manufacturing Support
PO Box 2000
Orange, TX 77631-2000
Phone: +1 (409) 882-2799
email: mike.hambrick@...


Re: NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

Roland Christen
 

Besides the encoders eliminating PE, the Mach2 brings the ability to move the mount manually during visual sweeping of the skies without losing position. It also allows critical balance to be achieved without backing the worm off the wormwheel and possibly damaging the worm teeth in the process, if done wrong. The base of the mount has been widened for better stability. Internally the heavy shaft sits farther between the bearings for increased stability over the Mach1.

The absolute encoders are mapped so that the precision tracking and pointing is maintained over the entire 360 degree axis motion. Relative encoders can theoretically eliminate PE, but generally introduce sub-divisional error (SDE). Relative encoders cannot be mapped at the factory against a known standard lab encoder since they do not have individual distinct position information. So the tracking accuracy may contain no periodic error component, but will inevitably have large drift component due to encoder disc runout. The Renishaw RESA encoder system has some 64 million distinct positions which are carefully mapped in our initial test and setup routine here at AP. The data is then transferred to the CP5 where it is stored and used to provide precise tracking and positioning to the axes at every point in the rotation of the axes.

To sum up the Mach2:

Mount has clutches that allow precise balancing of the axes.

Clutches can be loosened for manual sweeping of the mount during visual observing with no loss of position.

The gearbox uses belt drive for quiet operation along with brushless microstepper motors

The motors are oversized to provide high torque, the belts are heavy duty.

Precision Absolute encoders eliminate periodic error during sidereal or custom tracking

The encoders are mapped over 360 degrees to provide precise positioning and tracking over the entire rotation

The mount base has been strengthened for lower vibration and better damping of heavy loads.

Modern feed-forward encoder control loop produces quick response to external forces and produces a stiffer mount

Both axes can be driven accurately at custom and variable rates for unguided imaging with modeling

Rolando






-----Original Message-----
From: willsonjared via groups.io <willsonjared@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] NGC5371 and surrounding galaxies

For me, this feature will be the difference between a Mach2 being, “cool, but don’t really see a reason to upgrade from my Mach1” and being, “Wow, that would make it easy to bring a system into the field without needing to guide!”  Well done.  I can now see myself replacing my Mach1 at some point in the future which is something I couldn’t have imagined when the Mach2 was announced.


Re: Leaving counterweights on empty mount

thefamily90 Phillips
 

I have left AP mounts out under Telegizmos 365 covers for months with no ill effects.


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Joseph Beyer <jcbeyer2001@...>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 2:27:11 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: [ap-gto] Leaving counterweights on empty mount
 
Hello everyone,

I leave my Mach1/FSQ-106 set up for several days at a time, covering it during the day.  When the temperatures extend into the high 90s - low 100s I will often remove the scope and reinstall at night.  I counter balance the scope with 3 x 9lb weights and 2 x 6lb weights.  My usual method is to pull all of them off the empty mount.  Is it reasonable to leave any of the weights on the mount with no scope during the day?   

Joe   

5761 - 5780 of 76613