Advice please: Standard verus Rotating Pier Adapter


Kent Kirkley
 

In a message dated 4/17/07 12:45:50 PM, J.Zeglinski@rogers.com writes:


Hi,

    I would appreciate some advice about using the SPA versus RPA. I
recently
purchased the RPA with my new AP900, since it looked like a better, wiser,
choice. Now I am considering a second pier adapter, for an alternative
permanent fixed pier.

    I see how my RPA works , but I wonder, what are the difficulties with
using the Standard pier adapter, which made the RPA a more desirable,
somewhat
more expensive, option? I intend on transferring the AP900 between a field
tripod, and the permanent post in the yard, so the small inconvenience of
simply "loosening" the four hold down knobs for the Standard adapter fine
adjustment, may not justify the price difference, for me. There must be some
other aspect, or convenience, of using the RPA, I may have missed.

Much appreciated,
Joe
Joe:
I believe the Revolving Pier Adapter was produced primarily for those who
don't have a permanent pier and set up and tear down, either in their own yards
or some remote site. While the original standard pier adapter works great, when
doing polar alignment, loosening and tightening the 4 screws can slightly
shift the alignment. With the RPA, this doesn't happen, making polar alignment
less time consuming.

Kent Kirkley


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.


Kent Kirkley
 

In a message dated 4/17/07 2:03:05 PM, J.Zeglinski@rogers.com writes:


Thanks Kent - that was just the answer I was looking for.

    Now I'm glad I got the RPA, and will likely go for another. Although I
plan on making a permanent pier, I'm not yet ready to commit to full "rebar
and concrete" - but rather a very deep, stout pillar, in the ground, for
now.
So if there is any minute ground shift over the short year or two, the RPA
should give me less hassle in minor very precise, alignment touch ups.

Joe
Joe:
One possible problem with the RPA.
There is no 'real lock' in azimuth.
If you adjust azimuth in one direction using one knob and acheive the
position you want, should you move that knob again, the adjustment will be lost. I
suggest that once the position you want is reached, to carefully tighten the
opposing knob up to the adjuster post.

Another possibility is to completely tighten the resistance adjusting scews
(2) on the outside edge of the RPA. These are usually used to adjust the
tension of the rotation of the top plate, but I'm guessing one could tighten them
all the way, preventing the top plate (and mount) from moving.

Kent Kirkley


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.


Roland Christen
 

In a message dated 4/17/2007 2:31:58 PM Central Daylight Time,
kgkirkley@aol.com writes:


Another possibility is to completely tighten the resistance adjusting scews

(2) on the outside edge of the RPA. These are usually used to adjust the
tension of the rotation of the top plate, but I'm guessing one could tighten
them
all the way, preventing the top plate (and mount) from moving.
You can tighten them down to essentially lock the plate into place.

Roland Christen


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.


Joe Zeglinski
 

Hi,

I would appreciate some advice about using the SPA versus RPA. I recently
purchased the RPA with my new AP900, since it looked like a better, wiser,
choice. Now I am considering a second pier adapter, for an alternative
permanent fixed pier.

I see how my RPA works , but I wonder, what are the difficulties with
using the Standard pier adapter, which made the RPA a more desirable, somewhat
more expensive, option? I intend on transferring the AP900 between a field
tripod, and the permanent post in the yard, so the small inconvenience of
simply "loosening" the four hold down knobs for the Standard adapter fine
adjustment, may not justify the price difference, for me. There must be some
other aspect, or convenience, of using the RPA, I may have missed.

Much appreciated,
Joe


Joe Zeglinski
 

Thanks Kent - that was just the answer I was looking for.

Now I'm glad I got the RPA, and will likely go for another. Although I
plan on making a permanent pier, I'm not yet ready to commit to full "rebar
and concrete" - but rather a very deep, stout pillar, in the ground, for now.
So if there is any minute ground shift over the short year or two, the RPA
should give me less hassle in minor very precise, alignment touch ups.

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: <kgkirkley@aol.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Advice please: Standard verus Rotating Pier Adapter



In a message dated 4/17/07 12:45:50 PM, J.Zeglinski@rogers.com writes:


Hi,

I would appreciate some advice about using the SPA versus RPA. I
recently
purchased the RPA with my new AP900, since it looked like a better, wiser,
choice. Now I am considering a second pier adapter, for an alternative
permanent fixed pier.

I see how my RPA works , but I wonder, what are the difficulties with
using the Standard pier adapter, which made the RPA a more desirable,
somewhat
more expensive, option? I intend on transferring the AP900 between a field
tripod, and the permanent post in the yard, so the small inconvenience of
simply "loosening" the four hold down knobs for the Standard adapter fine
adjustment, may not justify the price difference, for me. There must be some
other aspect, or convenience, of using the RPA, I may have missed.

Much appreciated,
Joe
Joe:
I believe the Revolving Pier Adapter was produced primarily for those who
don't have a permanent pier and set up and tear down, either in their own
yards
or some remote site. While the original standard pier adapter works great,
when
doing polar alignment, loosening and tightening the 4 screws can slightly
shift the alignment. With the RPA, this doesn't happen, making polar alignment
less time consuming.

Kent Kirkley


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.






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


Joe Zeglinski
 

Good point, Kent.

I had forgotten about the side screws - AP warns against our even touching
them.

I was considering drilling a hole for a locking set screw - about half
inch inward from the gap of one or both azimuth "adjuster knob housing", on
the RPA. That way, I couldn't simply move the selected fixed one, ruining the
careful setting without thinking, as I replace the mount base and retighten
the opposing adjuster.

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: <kgkirkley@aol.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Advice please: Standard verus Rotating Pier Adapter



In a message dated 4/17/07 2:03:05 PM, J.Zeglinski@rogers.com writes:


Thanks Kent - that was just the answer I was looking for.

Now I'm glad I got the RPA, and will likely go for another. Although I
plan on making a permanent pier, I'm not yet ready to commit to full "rebar
and concrete" - but rather a very deep, stout pillar, in the ground, for
now.
So if there is any minute ground shift over the short year or two, the RPA
should give me less hassle in minor very precise, alignment touch ups.

Joe
Joe:
One possible problem with the RPA.
There is no 'real lock' in azimuth.
If you adjust azimuth in one direction using one knob and acheive the
position you want, should you move that knob again, the adjustment will be
lost. I
suggest that once the position you want is reached, to carefully tighten the
opposing knob up to the adjuster post.

Another possibility is to completely tighten the resistance adjusting scews
(2) on the outside edge of the RPA. These are usually used to adjust the
tension of the rotation of the top plate, but I'm guessing one could tighten
them
all the way, preventing the top plate (and mount) from moving.

Kent Kirkley


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.






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


Kent Kirkley
 

In a message dated 4/17/07 8:08:03 PM, J.Zeglinski@rogers.com writes:


Thanks Jeff,

That reinforces my decision to stay with RPA's on both tripod and fixed
pier.

    Actually, I had also considered having a machinist (horizontally &
vertically) "notch out" the pier mounting holes in two of my Flat Surface
Adapter (FSA), - one on the post, the other on the tripod - and leave a
"single RPA" attached to the fork, along with partially screwed in,  (6)
thumb
screws, so I could easily drop and twist the fork/RPA into either "slotted
FSA", just like a Losmandy G11 does into it's pier adapter. Then I figured
it
is "almost" as easy as fiddling with those four screw in knobs on the fork
(if
I don't lose one on the ground/snow). Besides, the RPA is pretty heavy, and
that would just about be a deal breaker for carrying weight, which was one
of
the major factors, when I decided to upgrade from my two week old G11.

Appreciate this,

Joe
Joe:
Roland even suggests that one can leave the mount attached to the RPA and
remove them both as a unit. If the pier is permanent, you can just replace 'the
unit' into the pier and probably keep polar alignment.

Kent Kirkley


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Jeff <jlc@...>
 

I've used both the SPA and RPA.

SPA on a 900 and RPA on a 1200.

I had my concerns/lack-of-belief with the RPA, but now I see the RPA is a
big jump over the SPA.
It is such a "subtle" difference that is THE BIG difference.

I suspect the RPA _requires_ the heavy duty az adjuster. But I suspect it
will work with the old style az adjuster, but not practically.
So, this would be the "only" reason to go with the SPA... but then the az
adjuster can be upgraded.

The only minor problem w/ the SPA is simply that if you ever need to move
the mount in AZ, you need to loosen all those bolts and retighten them.
The RPA is "no fuss". And it is SOLID due to the beefy AZ adjuster.

With the RPA, the AZ adjuster keeps it "set" in AZ.

With the SPA, the mount bolts keep it "set" in AZ, and the AZ adjusters just
"help keep it set".

Even with a fixed pier, I suspect there may be a need from time-to-time to
touch up the alignment.
(I'm not a fixed pier person, but where I live a) the ground moves every few
years (san francisco - living near a fault), and b) the ground is like clay
and moves with the change of seasons.)




_____

From: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Joseph Zeglinski
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:47 AM
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ap-gto] Advice please: Standard verus Rotating Pier Adapter



Hi,

I would appreciate some advice about using the SPA versus RPA. I recently
purchased the RPA with my new AP900, since it looked like a better, wiser,
choice. Now I am considering a second pier adapter, for an alternative
permanent fixed pier.

I see how my RPA works , but I wonder, what are the difficulties with
using the Standard pier adapter, which made the RPA a more desirable,
somewhat
more expensive, option? I intend on transferring the AP900 between a field
tripod, and the permanent post in the yard, so the small inconvenience of
simply "loosening" the four hold down knobs for the Standard adapter fine
adjustment, may not justify the price difference, for me. There must be some

other aspect, or convenience, of using the RPA, I may have missed.

Much appreciated,
Joe







__________ NOD32 2198 (20070417) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com


Kent Kirkley
 

In a message dated 4/17/07 8:48:38 PM, J.Zeglinski@rogers.com writes:


The AP900 RA with fork is 35 lbs.
'with fork' ??? What fork?

German equatorial mounts don't have forks, unless you are referring to the
mount's side plates.

Kent Kirkley



**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


Joe Zeglinski
 

Thanks Jeff,

That reinforces my decision to stay with RPA's on both tripod and fixed pier.

Actually, I had also considered having a machinist (horizontally &
vertically) "notch out" the pier mounting holes in two of my Flat Surface
Adapter (FSA), - one on the post, the other on the tripod - and leave a
"single RPA" attached to the fork, along with partially screwed in, (6) thumb
screws, so I could easily drop and twist the fork/RPA into either "slotted
FSA", just like a Losmandy G11 does into it's pier adapter. Then I figured it
is "almost" as easy as fiddling with those four screw in knobs on the fork (if
I don't lose one on the ground/snow). Besides, the RPA is pretty heavy, and
that would just about be a deal breaker for carrying weight, which was one of
the major factors, when I decided to upgrade from my two week old G11.

Appreciate this,

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff" <jlc@sbcglobal.net>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:37 PM
Subject: RE: [ap-gto] Advice please: Standard verus Rotating Pier Adapter


I've used both the SPA and RPA.

SPA on a 900 and RPA on a 1200.

I had my concerns/lack-of-belief with the RPA, but now I see the RPA is a
big jump over the SPA.
It is such a "subtle" difference that is THE BIG difference.

I suspect the RPA _requires_ the heavy duty az adjuster. But I suspect it
will work with the old style az adjuster, but not practically.
So, this would be the "only" reason to go with the SPA... but then the az
adjuster can be upgraded.

The only minor problem w/ the SPA is simply that if you ever need to move
the mount in AZ, you need to loosen all those bolts and retighten them.
The RPA is "no fuss". And it is SOLID due to the beefy AZ adjuster.

With the RPA, the AZ adjuster keeps it "set" in AZ.

With the SPA, the mount bolts keep it "set" in AZ, and the AZ adjusters just
"help keep it set".

Even with a fixed pier, I suspect there may be a need from time-to-time to
touch up the alignment.
(I'm not a fixed pier person, but where I live a) the ground moves every few
years (san francisco - living near a fault), and b) the ground is like clay
and moves with the change of seasons.)




_____

From: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ap-gto@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Joseph Zeglinski
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:47 AM
To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ap-gto] Advice please: Standard verus Rotating Pier Adapter



Hi,

I would appreciate some advice about using the SPA versus RPA. I recently
purchased the RPA with my new AP900, since it looked like a better, wiser,
choice. Now I am considering a second pier adapter, for an alternative
permanent fixed pier.

I see how my RPA works , but I wonder, what are the difficulties with
using the Standard pier adapter, which made the RPA a more desirable,
somewhat
more expensive, option? I intend on transferring the AP900 between a field
tripod, and the permanent post in the yard, so the small inconvenience of
simply "loosening" the four hold down knobs for the Standard adapter fine
adjustment, may not justify the price difference, for me. There must be some

other aspect, or convenience, of using the RPA, I may have missed.

Much appreciated,
Joe







__________ NOD32 2198 (20070417) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com








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




Joe Zeglinski
 

Hi Kent,

The way I figured it - the G11 head, complete, is 39 lbs, and no fun
lifting into position.
The AP900 RA with fork is 35 lbs. Add the RPA (about 5 lbs), and we are back
into the G11 weight category, which I was eagerly trying to get away from. It
still is an even possibility, but hauling the RPA around attached to the RA
assembly, is a minus.

Joe



Joe:
Roland even suggests that one can leave the mount attached to the RPA and
remove them both as a unit. If the pier is permanent, you can just replace
'the
unit' into the pier and probably keep polar alignment.

Kent Kirkley


Kent Kirkley
 

In a message dated 4/18/07 10:29:14 AM, J.Zeglinski@rogers.com writes:


Hi Kent,

    Yes, I dislike using the term "fork", for this AP mount's part, but that
is what they call the "pair of vertical plates and bottom plate" that
support
the Polar axle. I guess it really looks like and serves as a "fork for the
assembly", but not a "fork mount for a telescope". That really confuses
discussions about mounts, since we use the short form "fork" to imply
"mount".

    What do you think would be a better term to describe the base plate with
the two vertical side plates? Perhaps AP might accept using a different term
to describe their "base fork", from now on.

    Alternatively, we could simply change the part's terminology to a "yoke"
-
or will that now imply a form of "horse shoe" telescope mount?

    How about replacing the AP "base fork" terminology with the word
"BENDIX"
(if that is the correct spelling)?
If I recall correctly, there is a "fork-like" sliding part on the shaft of
every automobile's starter motor, that momentarily pushes the small starter
pinion into the main gear of the car's transmission, when you crank the
engine - so maybe we can suggest that AP change their confusing term, to an
AP
mount's "Bendix".
Any auto mechanics out there that can correct me on this?

Other suggestions?

Joe
Joe:
I didn't mean to have things get complicated.

I think "Polar Axis Assembly" would suffice.

Kent Kirkley


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Joe Zeglinski
 

Hi Kent,

Yes, I dislike using the term "fork", for this AP mount's part, but that
is what they call the "pair of vertical plates and bottom plate" that support
the Polar axle. I guess it really looks like and serves as a "fork for the
assembly", but not a "fork mount for a telescope". That really confuses
discussions about mounts, since we use the short form "fork" to imply "mount".

What do you think would be a better term to describe the base plate with
the two vertical side plates? Perhaps AP might accept using a different term
to describe their "base fork", from now on.

Alternatively, we could simply change the part's terminology to a "yoke" -
or will that now imply a form of "horse shoe" telescope mount?

How about replacing the AP "base fork" terminology with the word "BENDIX"
(if that is the correct spelling)?
If I recall correctly, there is a "fork-like" sliding part on the shaft of
every automobile's starter motor, that momentarily pushes the small starter
pinion into the main gear of the car's transmission, when you crank the
engine - so maybe we can suggest that AP change their confusing term, to an AP
mount's "Bendix".
Any auto mechanics out there that can correct me on this?

Other suggestions?

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: <kgkirkley@aol.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Advice please: Standard verus Rotating Pier Adapter



In a message dated 4/17/07 8:48:38 PM, J.Zeglinski@rogers.com writes:


The AP900 RA with fork is 35 lbs.
'with fork' ??? What fork?

German equatorial mounts don't have forks, unless you are referring to the
mount's side plates.

Kent Kirkley



**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.






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




Auchter Tom-W11806
 

Not sure where you are getting 35 lbs from. The RA aixs which includes
what you call the "fork" is listed as 26.5 lbs. The 900 mount is very
easy to carry and setup.

Tom


Joe Zeglinski
 

Hi Tom,

Yes, I forgot about that error.

I was probably thinking about the TOTAL weight of the mount, if I were to
lift it fully RA + DEC assembled (minus weights and bar). That is almost the
same as my G11 mount (minus it's weights and bar).

Though that seems strange - the G11 looks so puny compared to the AP900 -
the AP900 is more massive looking, more load bearing surface, yet a lot of the
excess aluminum has been milled away.

The choice is between doing "one heavy lift" (as for the G11) from house
to yard pier, or make two trips and save your back. That, along with the
better load surface, and of course, extra 10 lbs of scope load capacity,
swayed me to upgrade. Naturally, there were many other AP performance and
quality reasons.

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: "r9825" <w11806@email.mot.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:49 AM
Subject: [ap-gto] Re: Advice please: Standard verus Rotating Pier Adapter


Not sure where you are getting 35 lbs from. The RA aixs which includes
what you call the "fork" is listed as 26.5 lbs. The 900 mount is very
easy to carry and setup.

Tom





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




Joe Zeglinski
 

Yes, but I think you were right.

A lot of discussion about AP mounts eventually gets into referring to the
"base section". Quite often I see discussions on Astro Mart, and other places,
and they refer to the fork. The new fork versus the old fork, the mount
assembly instructions in the manual, the sales and parts catalog - the term
comes up quite often. I think it was descriptive, but perhaps an unfortunate
duplicate of something else.

I just wish that AP had selected some other term to name that part, a long
time ago. Now I dare not use the term "fork", lest perhaps someone new to the
product, gets momentarily confused with "fork mounts for telescopes", instead
of "fork mounts for telescope mount axles".

Indeed, it would seem that long standing members of the group and owners
of an AP mount might possibly not be aware of the "fork" term used this way.
At least this discussion leaves behind some hard copy in the archives, for
newcomers.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

Joe

----- Original Message -----
From: <kgkirkley@aol.com>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Advice please: Standard verus Rotating Pier Adapter



Joe:
I didn't mean to have things get complicated.

I think "Polar Axis Assembly" would suffice.

Kent Kirkley


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.






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


observe_m13
 

I call it simply the RA axis or more usually RA section. The altitude
plates and azimuth adjusters are part of this section. The other piece
is the Dec section or Dec axis. Pretty basic.

Rick.

--- In ap-gto@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Zeglinski" <J.Zeglinski@...> wrote:

Yes, but I think you were right.

A lot of discussion about AP mounts eventually gets into
referring to the
"base section". Quite often I see discussions on Astro Mart, and
other places,
and they refer to the fork. The new fork versus the old fork, the mount
assembly instructions in the manual, the sales and parts catalog -
the term
comes up quite often. I think it was descriptive, but perhaps an
unfortunate
duplicate of something else.

I just wish that AP had selected some other term to name that
part, a long
time ago. Now I dare not use the term "fork", lest perhaps someone
new to the
product, gets momentarily confused with "fork mounts for
telescopes", instead
of "fork mounts for telescope mount axles".

Indeed, it would seem that long standing members of the group
and owners
of an AP mount might possibly not be aware of the "fork" term used
this way.
At least this discussion leaves behind some hard copy in the
archives, for
newcomers.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

Joe


----- Original Message -----
From: <kgkirkley@...>
To: <ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Re: Advice please: Standard verus Rotating
Pier Adapter



Joe:
I didn't mean to have things get complicated.

I think "Polar Axis Assembly" would suffice.

Kent Kirkley


**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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