Date   

Re: Any Tips From Experienced Mach2 Users

Roland Christen
 

Good polar alignment helps a lot. Keeping the tripod/pier low makes for a more stable system. If you have more than 1 main scope, then side by side is more stable than on top of each other, unless the second scope is small (guide scope etc). Use thru-mount cable if you can, with a good powered hub. Otherwise tie the cables to the dovetail plate before snaking it down.Keep dew off the main scope and your coatings will last longer.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Jacobsen <deanjacobsen@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Wed, May 20, 2020 6:02 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Any Tips From Experienced Mach2 Users

Thanks Roland, after your advice yesterday I'm not really concerned about guiding settings.  My intent was to solicit any general operating tips from users based on their experience.  For instance, it may or may not [much more likely] have occurred to me that I should make sure and pull the RAPAS off before slewing the mount.  I haven't had to do that with my previous mounts.  It hasn't been something I have had to think of before and so I was glad that the topic came up.  So I was just wondering if there are any other useful things to know... that aren't about guiding.  ;-)
--
Dean Jacobsen
http://astrophoto.net/wp/ 
Image Gallery - http://astrophoto.net/wp/image-gallery/
Astrobin - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/ 


Re: Create a PEM curve with a camera?

Stuart <stuart.j.heggie@...>
 

Hey David, I'm sure you're right to be wondering about the guide scope approach. Have you used this guide scope / main scope together before and confirmed there is no flexure? If you haven't I'd be worried that you'll build a PEC curve for the guide scope only. 


On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 20:06, <davidenck@...> wrote:
Hello All, This may be a silly question, but can I use an ASI 290 mini guide camera (2.9 pixel size) through my guide scope (162 mm focal length) to create a PEM curve for my AP1100  when the day comes? Or should  it be through the   main scope.  It is a  Meade lx850 14 inch SCT..  Thinking the guide scope would avoid any mirror shift and such.. My main imaging  camera is a Canon T2i.. 

Thank you,  David


--

Stuart
http://www.astrofoto.ca/stuartheggie/


Create a PEM curve with a camera?

David Enck
 

Hello All, This may be a silly question, but can I use an ASI 290 mini guide camera (2.9 pixel size) through my guide scope (162 mm focal length) to create a PEM curve for my AP1100  when the day comes? Or should  it be through the   main scope.  It is a  Meade lx850 14 inch SCT..  Thinking the guide scope would avoid any mirror shift and such.. My main imaging  camera is a Canon T2i.. 

Thank you,  David


Re: Any Tips From Experienced Mach2 Users

Dean Jacobsen
 

Thanks Roland, after your advice yesterday I'm not really concerned about guiding settings.  My intent was to solicit any general operating tips from users based on their experience.  For instance, it may or may not [much more likely] have occurred to me that I should make sure and pull the RAPAS off before slewing the mount.  I haven't had to do that with my previous mounts.  It hasn't been something I have had to think of before and so I was glad that the topic came up.  So I was just wondering if there are any other useful things to know... that aren't about guiding.  ;-)
--
Dean Jacobsen
http://astrophoto.net/wp/ 
Image Gallery - http://astrophoto.net/wp/image-gallery/
Astrobin - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/ 


Re: Any Tips From Experienced Mach2 Users

Roland Christen
 

For first time operation of any mount setup, run the Guiding Assistant, get all the data, evaluate it, and set the mount up according to what is recommended by the Guiding assistant. Why futz around and ask what others have for settings? every setup is different, has different dynamics, different seeing, different focal lengths etc etc. Use the power of the software to get you grounded and started. That's my advice.

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Jacobsen <deanjacobsen@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Wed, May 20, 2020 3:42 pm
Subject: [ap-gto] Any Tips From Experienced Mach2 Users

Any operating tips from those of you who have been using your Mach2s for a while now?

I know that I need to remember to remove the RAPAS before slewing the mount.  Guiding with PHD2 seems to be no different than what I have been doing with the exception of a 2 or 3 second delay between exposures.  Any other useful tips?
--
Dean Jacobsen
http://astrophoto.net/wp/ 
Image Gallery - http://astrophoto.net/wp/image-gallery/
Astrobin - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/ 


Any Tips From Experienced Mach2 Users

Dean Jacobsen
 

Any operating tips from those of you who have been using your Mach2s for a while now?

I know that I need to remember to remove the RAPAS before slewing the mount.  Guiding with PHD2 seems to be no different than what I have been doing with the exception of a 2 or 3 second delay between exposures.  Any other useful tips?
--
Dean Jacobsen
http://astrophoto.net/wp/ 
Image Gallery - http://astrophoto.net/wp/image-gallery/
Astrobin - https://www.astrobin.com/users/deanjacobsen/ 


Re: APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC

Bill Conrad
 

Thanks Ray.


Re: APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC

Cheng-Yang Tan
 

Hi Ray,
   Do you mind posting here whenever there is an update of APCC? My APCC never informs me when there is an update. (FYI, PemPro, OTOH, always does)

Thanks!

cytan

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 10:08:16 AM CDT, Ray Gralak <groups3@...> wrote:


> Ray, when do you expect to have a fix?

I believe I have a fix already, but I need some clear skies to test it.

So, hopefully within a few days.

-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 Greg Salyer
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:54 AM
> To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC
>
> Ray, when do you expect to have a fix?
>
> > On May 20, 2020, at 10:45 AM, Ray Gralak <groups3@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > If you have a CP3 it's best that you stay with 1.8.0.9 until the next release. In 1.8.1.x a change was made to
> make the sign of the tracking rates consistent with what external programs expect, but it seems like it doesn't work
> with the CP3 because of an unexpected firmware difference between it and the CP4/5. Sorry, it wasn't discovered
> before 1.8.1.x was released. I usually don't have enough time to test with the CP3 under dark skies any more.
> >
> > -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 Bill Conrad
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 8:51 PM
> >> To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
> >> Subject: [ap-gto] APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC
> >>
> >> I have been using APCC Pro 1.8.0.9 with V2 5.30.10 on a AP1600-CP3 mount. I have a pointing model and
> have
> >> been running with Enable Pointing Correction and Enable Tracking Correction. When I updated to APCC Pro
> >> 1.8.1.1 I had to turn off Enable Tracking Correction as the rates seemed wrong (could not track a star). Also, on
> >> pier flip I had to abort with the scope pointing way below the horizon, then got it to successfully park back to
> park 4.
> >> After restoring 1.8.0.9 everything worked properly as before. I don't currently have log files to post. Any help
> would
> >> be appreciated. Thanks.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>




Re: APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC

 
Edited

Where do you find these versions - 1.8.0.9 and 1.8.0.11?  Are they developer versions?

All I can find is "APCC Pro - Public Release Version      March 7, 2020    APCC Pro v1.8.0.5".

EDIT: Never mind, I see under Help there is a "Check for updates...".  I'm a brand-new user of APCC.

SECOND EDIT: What I found in the manual earlier, and now at home trying firsthand, doesn't work.  From v1.8.0.5, the "Check for updates" says "No updates to APCC are available". Why is that?

Also, the APCC window is always on top of all other windows.  Can that be changed?


Re: Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO

Bill Long
 

Why would you not consider the dew shield in the length? For critical imaging application a single *cable* and its location is something considered (not only for snag purposes) so a heavier piece of metal on the front of the scope is important not to forget as well. 

There is no free lunch in imaging at all. Consider everything, double check everything, dot all your i's and cross all your t's... etc etc. 


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Terri Zittritsch <theresamarie11@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:17 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO
 
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 06:11 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> wrote:
I am guiding and doing unguided imaging with an AP160 scope (27lb tube) which has 1200mm focal length. The scope is quite robust with a heavy 4" focuser. Overall system length with extended dewcap and camera is 58", weight I'm guessing at around 48 lb (which includes the camera and dovetail system). The scope is balanced with 64lb worth of counterweight and counterweight bar. The mount is on a very light weight Losmandy tripod, which is definitely not recommended for serious imaging, but it works for me in the observatory. I have measured damping times of between 1.5 to 2 seconds, depending on where the scope is pointed. Most of that is because of the tripod which torques and twists pretty easily. The mount guides this setup quite easily and doesn't really tax anything. The weak link is of course my tripod. If this setup were mounted on a concrete pillar, the damping times would most likely be less than a second.
 
I have not seen a TEC 180, don't know the dimensions and weighs involved. I suppose if it is used with a robust tripod or pier, the mount would have no problem slewing it around. The bearings are heavy enough to hold any kind of weight, and normal tracking doesn't really stress the gear teeth. I would lower the max slew speed to 1000x, down from 1800x. If the mount doesn't catch a lot of wind, it would most likely guide very accurately. I've imaged in gusty wind conditions with the 160 and had no problem guiding.
 
Just make sure there are no dangling wires off the back of the scope because that represents quite a bit of force at the gearwheel. Every ounce of cable drag is multiplied 10x at the gear teeth. A disturbance of 1 arc sec at the gears is only 0.4 microns of  gear wheel motion at the teeth.
Yes Roland, understand.  I did go out and measure the length of my own setup and estimated a 180mm at focus.  I don't think it's fair to include the dew shield in a length calculation of weight unless it was overly heavy, and the TEC ones I don't think are.   The lens cell is where the weight is on one end.    And I use lightweight CMOS cameras, not the FLI/SBIG monsters that I see some use.    But agree and suspect 50" is optimistic and maybe more like 52-54" for the 180mm (not including dew shield extension).
Maybe the 180 is more appropriate for a permanent installation anyway. 

Terri




Re: APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC

Ray Gralak
 

Ray, when do you expect to have a fix?
I believe I have a fix already, but I need some clear skies to test it.

So, hopefully within a few days.

-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 Greg Salyer
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:54 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC

Ray, when do you expect to have a fix?

On May 20, 2020, at 10:45 AM, Ray Gralak <groups3@gralak.com> wrote:

Hi Bill,

If you have a CP3 it's best that you stay with 1.8.0.9 until the next release. In 1.8.1.x a change was made to
make the sign of the tracking rates consistent with what external programs expect, but it seems like it doesn't work
with the CP3 because of an unexpected firmware difference between it and the CP4/5. Sorry, it wasn't discovered
before 1.8.1.x was released. I usually don't have enough time to test with the CP3 under dark skies any more.

-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 Bill Conrad
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 8:51 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC

I have been using APCC Pro 1.8.0.9 with V2 5.30.10 on a AP1600-CP3 mount. I have a pointing model and
have
been running with Enable Pointing Correction and Enable Tracking Correction. When I updated to APCC Pro
1.8.1.1 I had to turn off Enable Tracking Correction as the rates seemed wrong (could not track a star). Also, on
pier flip I had to abort with the scope pointing way below the horizon, then got it to successfully park back to
park 4.
After restoring 1.8.0.9 everything worked properly as before. I don't currently have log files to post. Any help
would
be appreciated. Thanks.



Re: APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC

Greg Salyer
 

Ray, when do you expect to have a fix?

On May 20, 2020, at 10:45 AM, Ray Gralak <groups3@gralak.com> wrote:

Hi Bill,

If you have a CP3 it's best that you stay with 1.8.0.9 until the next release. In 1.8.1.x a change was made to make the sign of the tracking rates consistent with what external programs expect, but it seems like it doesn't work with the CP3 because of an unexpected firmware difference between it and the CP4/5. Sorry, it wasn't discovered before 1.8.1.x was released. I usually don't have enough time to test with the CP3 under dark skies any more.

-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 Bill Conrad
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 8:51 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC

I have been using APCC Pro 1.8.0.9 with V2 5.30.10 on a AP1600-CP3 mount. I have a pointing model and have
been running with Enable Pointing Correction and Enable Tracking Correction. When I updated to APCC Pro
1.8.1.1 I had to turn off Enable Tracking Correction as the rates seemed wrong (could not track a star). Also, on
pier flip I had to abort with the scope pointing way below the horizon, then got it to successfully park back to park 4.
After restoring 1.8.0.9 everything worked properly as before. I don't currently have log files to post. Any help would
be appreciated. Thanks.



Re: APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC

Ray Gralak
 

Hi Bill,

If you have a CP3 it's best that you stay with 1.8.0.9 until the next release. In 1.8.1.x a change was made to make the sign of the tracking rates consistent with what external programs expect, but it seems like it doesn't work with the CP3 because of an unexpected firmware difference between it and the CP4/5. Sorry, it wasn't discovered before 1.8.1.x was released. I usually don't have enough time to test with the CP3 under dark skies any more.

-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 Bill Conrad
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 8:51 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC

I have been using APCC Pro 1.8.0.9 with V2 5.30.10 on a AP1600-CP3 mount. I have a pointing model and have
been running with Enable Pointing Correction and Enable Tracking Correction. When I updated to APCC Pro
1.8.1.1 I had to turn off Enable Tracking Correction as the rates seemed wrong (could not track a star). Also, on
pier flip I had to abort with the scope pointing way below the horizon, then got it to successfully park back to park 4.
After restoring 1.8.0.9 everything worked properly as before. I don't currently have log files to post. Any help would
be appreciated. Thanks.


APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 update #APCC

Bill Conrad
 

I have been using APCC Pro 1.8.0.9 with V2 5.30.10 on a AP1600-CP3 mount. I have a pointing model and have been running with Enable Pointing Correction and Enable Tracking Correction. When I updated to APCC Pro 1.8.1.1 I had to turn off Enable Tracking Correction as the rates seemed wrong (could not track a star). Also, on pier flip I had to abort with the scope pointing way below the horizon, then got it to successfully park back to park 4. After restoring 1.8.0.9 everything worked properly as before. I don't currently have log files to post. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.


Re: Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO

Terri Zittritsch
 

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 06:11 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> wrote:
I am guiding and doing unguided imaging with an AP160 scope (27lb tube) which has 1200mm focal length. The scope is quite robust with a heavy 4" focuser. Overall system length with extended dewcap and camera is 58", weight I'm guessing at around 48 lb (which includes the camera and dovetail system). The scope is balanced with 64lb worth of counterweight and counterweight bar. The mount is on a very light weight Losmandy tripod, which is definitely not recommended for serious imaging, but it works for me in the observatory. I have measured damping times of between 1.5 to 2 seconds, depending on where the scope is pointed. Most of that is because of the tripod which torques and twists pretty easily. The mount guides this setup quite easily and doesn't really tax anything. The weak link is of course my tripod. If this setup were mounted on a concrete pillar, the damping times would most likely be less than a second.
 
I have not seen a TEC 180, don't know the dimensions and weighs involved. I suppose if it is used with a robust tripod or pier, the mount would have no problem slewing it around. The bearings are heavy enough to hold any kind of weight, and normal tracking doesn't really stress the gear teeth. I would lower the max slew speed to 1000x, down from 1800x. If the mount doesn't catch a lot of wind, it would most likely guide very accurately. I've imaged in gusty wind conditions with the 160 and had no problem guiding.
 
Just make sure there are no dangling wires off the back of the scope because that represents quite a bit of force at the gearwheel. Every ounce of cable drag is multiplied 10x at the gear teeth. A disturbance of 1 arc sec at the gears is only 0.4 microns of  gear wheel motion at the teeth.
Yes Roland, understand.  I did go out and measure the length of my own setup and estimated a 180mm at focus.  I don't think it's fair to include the dew shield in a length calculation of weight unless it was overly heavy, and the TEC ones I don't think are.   The lens cell is where the weight is on one end.    And I use lightweight CMOS cameras, not the FLI/SBIG monsters that I see some use.    But agree and suspect 50" is optimistic and maybe more like 52-54" for the 180mm (not including dew shield extension).
Maybe the 180 is more appropriate for a permanent installation anyway. 

Terri




Re: Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO

dvjbaja
 

I totally agree with Bill Long and Roland.  For many years I used the AP 180 F/7 EDF on my 1200 mount.  By the time I added all of the accessories for imaging, including guidescope, I found the 1200 to be adequate for imaging and viewing. That 180 F/7 is no small instrument.  While I am certain the Mach 2 could carry the weight load of your 180, you would probably experience the tuning fork effect from the long moment arm of the OTA.  Nothing worse than a shaky mount.  Can you say JELLO?  - jg


On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:26 PM Bill Long <bill@...> wrote:
An FLI 16803 camera, CFW5-7 loaded with filters, MMOAG, along with all of the other dressing for automated imaging is going to be big, bulky, heavy and really long. Now add the 180mm refractor, and things are going to be monstrous. 

As an experiment, I went out to my imaging system that is sitting in my dining area. The scope is a A-P 130GTX, with its dew shield fully extended, field flattener, camera/wheel/oag installed, focuser racked out in focus (as it was the last time I imaged with it outside). 

I measured from the very back of the imaging train (ASI6200, wheel, OAG -- nothing compared to the FLI system suggested above) and it is 43.5" from the back of the imaging train to the front of the dew shield.

No way a 180mm refractor and that type of imaging system is coming anywhere close to 50". Far, far longer than that. 


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Terri Zittritsch <theresamarie11@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 12:24 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO
 
Unless I'm reading it wrong, the OP is suggesting 50" and 52 pounds.  The A-P literature says the Mach2 is fine for 60 pounds at 50" of length, and assume the A-P literature isn't defining a point of failure or a point we can't use it for AP.    And granted, if I was buying a new mount specifically for a telescope, I might not pick a mount within 10-15% of its limit.   But since I own a Mach2, are you suggesting I shouldn't use it with a TEC180?  I measured 11 pounds of guidescope+camera plus filter wheel and imaging camera for my own setup.    But I'm sure with the cables, focuser controller, usb hub, etc.. it will hit 15 pounds, but much of this is at the balance point, not at the ends,  except camera and filter wheel, which should lessen the moment load.
It will be disappointing to think that the mount I've purchased is basically maxed out now.    I have been looking at a 180 size scope, in fact maybe the exact same scope as the OP.


Terri

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 05:30 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> wrote:
I do not recommend that size scope on the Mach2. The 160 is fine, the 180 is pushing things.
 
Rolando


Re: Advice needed: I can rock RA in Mach1GTO (very small), should I adjust?

Roland Christen
 

You can tighten that nut without causing any problems. The bearings will take up to 15 inch-lb of torque. Heavy vibration during shipping might loosen the nut. Put a dab of RTV at the periphery of the nut to keep it from loosening.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Cheng-Yang Tan via groups.io <cytan299@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, May 19, 2020 5:59 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Advice needed: I can rock RA in Mach1GTO (very small), should I adjust?

Hi guys,
   I did what Rolando posted in the instructions below. I could actually turn the nut by 1/4 turn! I didn't have a spanner wrench and so I made a fixture to fit into the two holes. I first tightened using just my fingers and then used a pair of pliers to do the final tightening. I  don't think I had a lot of leverage and so I don't think I overtightened the nut. However, if I did, can overtightening cause problems?

  Even after tightening the nut, there was still a small RA play, I think < 10 mils that I both feel and see. George then asked me to adjust the backstop. And voila, the RA play disappeared.

  It's fixed now (unless I managed to screw up something else) but I am really surprised that I could turn the nut by 1/4 turn.

  Thanks to everybody who posted here, Rolando and George.

cytan

On Sunday, May 17, 2020, 03:28:09 PM CDT, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:


Thank you for posting that.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Gabe Shaughnessy <gshaughnessy@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 17, 2020 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Advice needed: I can rock RA in Mach1GTO (very small), should I adjust?

I had a similar issue to this with my AP1100.  I adjusted the backstop, but that didn't help.  I followed some additional adjustment instructions given by Roland here. Worked like a charm!

Gabe


Re: Advice needed: I can rock RA in Mach1GTO (very small), should I adjust?

Cheng-Yang Tan
 

Hi guys,
   I did what Rolando posted in the instructions below. I could actually turn the nut by 1/4 turn! I didn't have a spanner wrench and so I made a fixture to fit into the two holes. I first tightened using just my fingers and then used a pair of pliers to do the final tightening. I  don't think I had a lot of leverage and so I don't think I overtightened the nut. However, if I did, can overtightening cause problems?

  Even after tightening the nut, there was still a small RA play, I think < 10 mils that I both feel and see. George then asked me to adjust the backstop. And voila, the RA play disappeared.

  It's fixed now (unless I managed to screw up something else) but I am really surprised that I could turn the nut by 1/4 turn.

  Thanks to everybody who posted here, Rolando and George.

cytan

On Sunday, May 17, 2020, 03:28:09 PM CDT, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via groups.io <chris1011@...> wrote:


Thank you for posting that.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Gabe Shaughnessy <gshaughnessy@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Sun, May 17, 2020 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Advice needed: I can rock RA in Mach1GTO (very small), should I adjust?

I had a similar issue to this with my AP1100.  I adjusted the backstop, but that didn't help.  I followed some additional adjustment instructions given by Roland here. Worked like a charm!

Gabe


Re: Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO

Shailesh Trivedi
 

Roland,

I am the OP (I am assuming it stands for Original Poster).

This is very encouraging as I am very much interested in the portability of the Mach2 GTO and want an option to be able to image it with a TEC 180 FL (37lbs, 44 inches retracted min length) but with a Proline FLI 16803 that perhaps adds another 15 lbs and nother 10 inches to the length.

I do have a permanent pier setup but from Software Bisque for user with a Paramount MX hole pattern. When I get my Mach2 notification, I would like to know if/how I can use that permanent pier with some AP adapters on my 10 inch permanent SW Bisque pier.

Shailesh


Re: Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO

Roland Christen
 

I am guiding and doing unguided imaging with an AP160 scope (27lb tube) which has 1200mm focal length. The scope is quite robust with a heavy 4" focuser. Overall system length with extended dewcap and camera is 58", weight I'm guessing at around 48 lb (which includes the camera and dovetail system). The scope is balanced with 64lb worth of counterweight and counterweight bar. The mount is on a very light weight Losmandy tripod, which is definitely not recommended for serious imaging, but it works for me in the observatory. I have measured damping times of between 1.5 to 2 seconds, depending on where the scope is pointed. Most of that is because of the tripod which torques and twists pretty easily. The mount guides this setup quite easily and doesn't really tax anything. The weak link is of course my tripod. If this setup were mounted on a concrete pillar, the damping times would most likely be less than a second.

I have not seen a TEC 180, don't know the dimensions and weighs involved. I suppose if it is used with a robust tripod or pier, the mount would have no problem slewing it around. The bearings are heavy enough to hold any kind of weight, and normal tracking doesn't really stress the gear teeth. I would lower the max slew speed to 1000x, down from 1800x. If the mount doesn't catch a lot of wind, it would most likely guide very accurately. I've imaged in gusty wind conditions with the 160 and had no problem guiding.

Just make sure there are no dangling wires off the back of the scope because that represents quite a bit of force at the gearwheel. Every ounce of cable drag is multiplied 10x at the gear teeth. A disturbance of 1 arc sec at the gears is only 0.4 microns of  gear wheel motion at the teeth.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Terri Zittritsch <theresamarie11@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Tue, May 19, 2020 2:24 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the OP is suggesting 50" and 52 pounds.  The A-P literature says the Mach2 is fine for 60 pounds at 50" of length, and assume the A-P literature isn't defining a point of failure or a point we can't use it for AP.    And granted, if I was buying a new mount specifically for a telescope, I might not pick a mount within 10-15% of its limit.   But since I own a Mach2, are you suggesting I shouldn't use it with a TEC180?  I measured 11 pounds of guidescope+camera plus filter wheel and imaging camera for my own setup.    But I'm sure with the cables, focuser controller, usb hub, etc.. it will hit 15 pounds, but much of this is at the balance point, not at the ends,  except camera and filter wheel, which should lessen the moment load.
It will be disappointing to think that the mount I've purchased is basically maxed out now.    I have been looking at a 180 size scope, in fact maybe the exact same scope as the OP.


Terri

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 05:30 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> wrote:
I do not recommend that size scope on the Mach2. The 160 is fine, the 180 is pushing things.
 
Rolando

8581 - 8600 of 79018