Topics

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

Shailesh Trivedi
 

Hello All,

I have two AP refractors (130GTX and Stowaway). I am also on the April 2019 list for the Mach2 GTO and on waitlist for a TEC 180FL.

I use either a SBIG ST8300M + FW or Proline FLI 16803 (heavier).

My question: I am quite sure that the Mach2 GTO will not be able to handle a TEC 180 + FLI image train from weight & length standpoint.

For such a load, are we talking AP1200 or will a AP1100 do?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Shailesh

Stuart
 

Is the 1600 out of reach financially? That is a big, long scope. So weight isn't the only issue.


On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 14:27, Shailesh Trivedi <strivedi@...> wrote:
Hello All,

I have two AP refractors (130GTX and Stowaway). I am also on the April 2019 list for the Mach2 GTO and on waitlist for a TEC 180FL.

I use either a SBIG ST8300M + FW or Proline FLI 16803 (heavier).

My question: I am quite sure that the Mach2 GTO will not be able to handle a TEC 180 + FLI image train from weight & length standpoint.

For such a load, are we talking AP1200 or will a AP1100 do?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Shailesh


--

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

Shailesh Trivedi
 

Hi Stuart,

If I absolutely need the 1600 then that may be an option. Alternately I do have a Paramount MX (legacy) with a 90 lb payload  capacity which may or may not suffice. The TEC 180 spec says 37lbs and 44 inches lenght retracted; so by the time I add the FLI camera + FW it adds another 15lbs and focusing will add another 4-5 inches to the length easily.

That said, I am eagerly awaiting the Mach2 notification since its size/weight/encoders for the price are all quite alluring and is the closest I will get to a portable setup. As we get older, our definition of portable changes. Though for me the TEC 180 FL will be far from portable (to some it is easy).

Shailesh

dvjbaja
 

It's all about the moment arm.  Long tube, weight on each end.  The Mach 2 will support the weight. But it may have the Jello effect because of the long moment arm.  



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note9, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Shailesh Trivedi <strivedi@...>
Date: 5/6/20 11:44 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO

Hi Stuart,

If I absolutely need the 1600 then that may be an option. Alternately I do have a Paramount MX (legacy) with a 90 lb payload  capacity which may or may not suffice. The TEC 180 spec says 37lbs and 44 inches lenght retracted; so by the time I add the FLI camera + FW it adds another 15lbs and focusing will add another 4-5 inches to the length easily.

That said, I am eagerly awaiting the Mach2 notification since its size/weight/encoders for the price are all quite alluring and is the closest I will get to a portable setup. As we get older, our definition of portable changes. Though for me the TEC 180 FL will be far from portable (to some it is easy).

Shailesh

Michael Hambrick
 

I use an 1100 mount with my Astro-Physics 180 EDT and SBIG STXL16200. The 1100 handles this setup without any problems. Here is a photo:




Best Regards

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

Shailesh Trivedi
 

Thank you Michael.

Shailesh Trivedi
 

Wanted to get Roland's thoughts on the Mach2 for a TEC 180 FL + Proline FLI 16803 + FW (37lb scope + 15 lb camera gear); lenghth ~48 - 50 inches.

I am eagerly awaiting a notification after folks are back to work in AP factory/workshop. But should i order an AP1100 or AP1200 instead?

Shailesh

uncarollo2 <chris1011@aol.com>
 

I do not recommend that size scope on the Mach2. The 160 is fine, the 180 is pushing things.

Rolando



-----Original Message-----
From: Shailesh Trivedi <strivedi@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Fri, May 8, 2020 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO

Wanted to get Roland's thoughts on the Mach2 for a TEC 180 FL + Proline FLI 16803 + FW (37lb scope + 15 lb camera gear); lenghth ~48 - 50 inches.

I am eagerly awaiting a notification after folks are back to work in AP factory/workshop. But should i order an AP1100 or AP1200 instead?

Shailesh

Shailesh Trivedi
 

Thank you, Roland. 

Which AP mount would you recommend for this work load? AP1100 or AP1600?

Shailesh

uncarollo2 <chris1011@aol.com>
 

I have a similar scope, an AP175, mounted on a 1600 mount in my Hawaii observatory, and it works like a dream. However, if you will not be permanently mounted, the 1100 is a great choice. Nice solid mount and portable too.

Rolando


-----Original Message-----
From: Shailesh Trivedi <strivedi@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Fri, May 8, 2020 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Mount recommendation for TEC 180FL with FLI 16803 + FW #Mach2GTO

Thank you, Roland. 

Which AP mount would you recommend for this work load? AP1100 or AP1600?

Shailesh

Terri Zittritsch
 

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

Bill Long
 

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

uncarollo2 <chris1011@aol.com>
 

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

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

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

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



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