Maybe I am not understanding what you guys are driving at, but it sounds
to me like way to much emphasis is being put on the OTA being orthogonal
with the mount. As long as the mount itself is square with itself isn't
that pretty much all you need? Or am I missing the point?

--
Greg Mueller

I killed Kenny, m'kay?

Greg:
Just received a copy of your message concerning the mount being "square"
with itself. From AstroPhysics, the mount is indeed "square" with
itself. That is, the right ascension axis is perfectly perpendicular
with the declination axis. The problem arises when the user attaches the
telescope to the mount by installing it in the rings. If everything is
perfect, the optical axis of the telescope will now be perpendicular to
the declination axis and the horrors of non-orthogonality will not arise.
But if that optical axis is not perpendicular, then the GOTO functions
will never achieve the five thousand dollar accuracy you paid for.

Sincerely,
Mike Roth

----

Greg:
Just received a copy of your message concerning the mount being "square"
with itself. From AstroPhysics, the mount is indeed "square" with
itself. That is, the right ascension axis is perfectly perpendicular
with the declination axis. The problem arises when the user attaches the
telescope to the mount by installing it in the rings. If everything is
perfect, the optical axis of the telescope will now be perpendicular to
the declination axis and the horrors of non-orthogonality will not arise.
But if that optical axis is not perpendicular, then the GOTO functions
will never achieve the five thousand dollar accuracy you paid for.

Sincerely,
Mike Roth

It sounds like Roland may have to come up with some two thousand
dollar rings to satisfy your GOTO needs.

I hope he will continue to offer the standard rings for those of us
who can find things without GOTO.

Rich