RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report


Jul 1, 2000

 


----------------------------

#716 Jul 1, 2000

I am on my way back out to Anza tonight in a moment but wanted to let you,

and maybe the folks at AP know, the 400GTO worked very well. As an aside,

while I have never been to Mount Pinos, the S&T article was a bit harsh on

Anza.



Anyways I used a 400GTO with a 130EDT f/8. I installed the 15DOVE which came

with the scope but oddly enough the scope came from it's previous owner with

a GM8 and Losmandy D series plates as well. I thought Christine was send me

the screws for the 15 inch plate but I misunderstood. There is a flat plate

as well and she sent me the screws for that. As you know, is you use those

cap screws with the dove plate, the sliding bar does not slide. g> So I

order and got some flat head socket screws from McMaster online. I am not

exactly sure how to secure a safety screw to keep the scope from sliding

accidentally, but I was just darn careful when loosening the locks on the

dove plate.



Anyway I secured the rings, still with the 'adaptor blocks' on the bottom of

them, to the sliding bar using one 1 1/2 inch 1/4-20 screw. I don't thing I

need the blocks. If fact they may cause the dreaded 'orthogonality'

problems. Beats me. I followed the manual and setup the wood tripod and

mount with no scope on it and waited for Polaris. I sighted Polaris through

the hole in the RA axis and put the scope on the mount. Whoa! Waaaay outta

balance BIG time and the Dec and RA locks won't hold it. Gotta be REAL

careful and learn where the setup balance points are. I needed both 6 and 9

pound counterweights. Apparently Roland does not believe the locks should be

like vises.g> They are there to provide 'enough friction' when the scope is

balanced. sigh> Later this was to be a real pain as the 4mm Takahashi EP

and the 31mm Terminagler are like the odd couple of EPs when it comes to

mass. 8^)



Okay, so the time of year is right and I can follow the manual! Sight Vega

(I used a 7.5mm EP as I forgot my 6mm illuminated crosshair EP). Back to

Polaris. Whoa! Outta balance and the objective end of the tube headed south

down the Dec axis! Fortunately I was right there. Okay move the tube back a

bit in the rings and start over. Vega, Goto, Polaris. Whoa!g> Not even

within the quickfinder's 2 degree circle! Grunt grunt, wrestle, wrestle and

I moved the tripod, scope and all. Ow! Okay, I _gotta_ balance that tube

some more in declination... g>. Okay Polaris is in the quickfinder, and I

played with the fine adjustments to center Polaris in the EP. Oooooh NOW I

see what Ron Wodaski means about tighten the screws after an azimuth

adjustment! You have to 'lead them' in the EP. 8^| Oh well. What do I care,

I am not imaging. g> Back to Vega. Off by 3 degrees! Back to Polaris, off

by 2.5... I see a trendg>. And so it went for about 6 times. But it did

converged. Cool. It took about 30 to 45 minutes for this 'first timer'.



I figured six times meant I might have the dreaded 'orthogonalilty' problem.

Now how in @^#$ am I suppose to shim this scope when it's mounted. Man that

looks like a non-newmoon night task. I am not gonna try that in the complete

dark! I'll take those 'adaptor' blocks off the rings next time and try that

first. Then it'll be an ALL AP setup. So ff I went to quantify that

orthogonality problem. Follow directions... hmm... it's 9:30PDT on

6/30/2000, Arcturus might work just like the directions say. It slewed to

Arcturus. Whallala-be-darned. It's right there! Center it and choose

epsilon. (or was it eta? dunno the manual is downstairs) Whats this? The

scope just move slightly and it center epsilon. Darn! (and it was

dangerously close to the tripod legg>!). Maybe I should have had a safe

zone defined? Or maybe the people who wrote the manual did. Or maybe it was

just too late and both stars were across the meridian. Anyhoo I used Zeta

Herc and Alpha CrB and that worked. What a cool mount. All that movement to

completely the other side and Alpha CrB was in the FOV of the 7.5mm and the

R.A. error was quite small. I'll of course need a crosshair EP to quantify

it. I decided that was *good* enough.



Bottom line was, it was a very accurate mount. I messed up the balance (31mm

T5) and it moved on me in declination once or twice. So I did a N Pole

alignment using the 7.5 and a 1.8x TV barlow and it was as good as I left it

the first time. Then, I left the 7.5 and 1.8x barlow in (249x, 6' FOV) and

slewed to Zeta Boo and was virtually centered. Not bad guys. No HPP mode

needed! g>



The mount was VERY stable. As good or actually IMO better than the GM8. That

tripod is a gem. You can whack it and it damps in second. I rap tested the

tube and it was steady in 1-2 seconds.



Soooo my only buggaboo is the balance thing. I guess I'll just get used to

it. Or I'll have to remember to start using that brass equalizer I bought a

year or two ago.



Clear skies,

Jeff



----------------------------

#717 Jul 2, 2000

Jeff:

I am one such person who received a non-orthogonal mount from

AstroPhysics. You need a lot of time and some patience and DAYLIGHT to

correct this problem. In fact, if you have the light and the time you

might even enjoy it. I devised a daylight correct procedure to do so.

If you ever need this procedure let me know.



Sincerely,

Mike Roth



Incidentally, I sent my sliding bar BACK because I found it too dangerous

to use. The simple flat plate is MUCH better and I have yet to have a

single heart-stopping moment with it and I have a 155.







----------------------------

#718 Jul 2, 2000

In a message dated 7/2/00 5:48:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, maroth@...

writes:



< I devised a daylight correct procedure to do so.

If you ever need this procedure let me know. >>



Hi Mike,



I also am one such "lucky" person who had a non-ortho mount. If you have

time would you please share your method? Previous efforts of mine have

failed.



Thanks for any help, Peter



----------------------------

#719 Jul 2, 2000

I figured six times meant I might have the dreaded 'orthogonalilty' problem.

> Now how in @^#$ am I suppose to shim this scope when it's mounted. Man that

> looks like a non-newmoon night task. I am not gonna try that in the complete

> dark!



Hi Jeff:



You are right, it is frustrating wasting valuable time do orthogonality

at a dark site (if we are at the same dark site I will bring a polar

scope). You may not have as much problem with orthogonality as you

think. Sometimes the alignment procedure does not converge very

rapidly. For visual use, I still think the best way to align is to get

a polar scope, which is rumored to be out soon from AP. For photos,

Roland had some good suggestions which are in message 10 of this group.

Other people use slightly different methods, but I can't remember where

their messages are. Perhaps we should make a FAQ to this group, after

this nearly born child lets me get some sleep...



Derek



----------------------------

#720 Jul 2, 2000

I would like to see your daylight procedure for correcting orthoganol

alignment.



Thanks...Terry Johnson

----- Original Message -----

From: "Michael A. Roth" maroth@...>

To: ap-gto@egroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 2:46 AM

Subject: Re: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report





> Jeff:

> I am one such person who received a non-orthogonal mount from

> AstroPhysics. You need a lot of time and some patience and DAYLIGHT to

> correct this problem. In fact, if you have the light and the time you

> might even enjoy it. I devised a daylight correct procedure to do so.

> If you ever need this procedure let me know.

>

> Sincerely,

> Mike Roth

>

> Incidentally, I sent my sliding bar BACK because I found it too dangerous

> to use. The simple flat plate is MUCH better and I have yet to have a

> single heart-stopping moment with it and I have a 155.

>

---------------

> Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.

> click.egroups.com/1/6137/7/_/3615/_/962531278/

---------------

>

>

>



----------------------------

#721 Jul 2, 2000

"Michael A. Roth" wrote:

> Jeff:

> I am one such person who received a non-orthogonal mount from

> AstroPhysics. You need a lot of time and some patience and DAYLIGHT to

> correct this problem. In fact, if you have the light and the time you

> might even enjoy it. I devised a daylight correct procedure to do so.

> If you ever need this procedure let me know.



Michael,



I need to do this b/c the dp on my C11 is crooked. Could you send me

your procedure?



Regards,

Bob K.



----------------------------

#722 Jul 2, 2000

In a message dated 7/2/00 5:48:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

maroth@... > Hi Mike,

> I also am one such "lucky" person who had a non-ortho mount. If you have

> time would you please share your method? Previous efforts of mine have

> failed.



You mean a production defect? Or you are using something with the mount that

is making it 'non-ortho'. Just how bad are we talking? My 400 GTO mount,

when it slewed all the way from one side of the meridian to another still

put the star in question with 3 arc-mins of the other star's position in the

EP. The FOV of the EP was only 6'.



clear skies,

Jeff



----------------------------

#727 Jul 3, 2000

I want a copy also.



-----Original Message-----

From: Terry Johnson [mailto:tjohnson@...]

Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 10:12 AM

To: ap-gto@egroups.com

Subject: Re: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report





I would like to see your daylight procedure for correcting orthoganol

alignment.



Thanks...Terry Johnson

----- Original Message -----

From: "Michael A. Roth" maroth@...>

To: ap-gto@egroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 2:46 AM

Subject: Re: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report





> Jeff:

> I am one such person who received a non-orthogonal mount from

> AstroPhysics. You need a lot of time and some patience and DAYLIGHT to

> correct this problem. In fact, if you have the light and the time you

> might even enjoy it. I devised a daylight correct procedure to do so.

> If you ever need this procedure let me know.

>

> Sincerely,

> Mike Roth

>

> Incidentally, I sent my sliding bar BACK because I found it too dangerous

> to use. The simple flat plate is MUCH better and I have yet to have a

> single heart-stopping moment with it and I have a 155.

>

---------------

> Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.

> click.egroups.com/1/6137/7/_/3615/_/962531278/

---------------

>

>

>





---------------

Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.

click.egroups.com/1/4633/7/_/3615/_/962557894/

---------------







----------------------------

#729 Jul 3, 2000

> I figured six times meant I might have the dreaded 'orthogonalilty' problem.

> > Now how in @^#$ am I suppose to shim this scope when it's mounted. Man that

> > looks like a non-newmoon night task. I am not gonna try that in the complete

> > dark!

>



Hi Jeff,



To cut down on the iterations when polar aligning your scope

for each iteration you should only adjust the altitude and azimuth

adjustments to move Polaris half-way to the center of your finder (or

eyepiece when you get sufficiently close). If you put Polaris in

the center each time you will overshoot the correction and it will

take more iterations.



-Ray Gralak



----------------------------

#730 Jul 3, 2000

It's not always the case that half-way will work for you, and I wondered

why. I have a theory, of course g>.



The basis of my theory is this (untested) assumption, but I think it's true:

because the two coordinate systems (alt-az and equatorial) are oriented so

differently, making a change to a single axis (alt or az) can affect

position in the other coordinate system along two axes (RA and Dec).



For example, if one axis (alt or az) is very close to correct, and the other

is not, you should avoid making changes to the one that is close to correct,

and concentrate on getting the other one close to correct, too. I haven't

had to do this kind of polar alignment for several months, so my experience

isn't fresh. I'm currently using a polar scope on an NJP 160, although I

have a 400 GTO coming and will have to re-learn these skills.



But as I recall, if one axis was close, and I made adjustments to two axes

(alt and az), the axis that was close to correct would oscillate

(overshoot). I would then move that axis to the mid position (between the

extremes of the oscillation), and then leave it alone and concentrate on

bringing the other axis close to correct position. Once both were of nearly

equal magnitude, I could then quickly get a good alignment by adjusting both

together.



I have even had situations where I have had to go _double_ the distance,

rather than half the distance, to get aligned in a reasonable number of

iterations. If memory serves, that tended to be the case when I was aligning

to stars on different sides of the meridian, but it has been a while and I'm

not entirely sure.



Ron Wodaski

www.newastro.com







-----Original Message-----

From: Ray Gralak [mailto:ray@...]

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 10:27 AM

To: ap-gto@...

Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report



> > I figured six times meant I might have the dreaded 'orthogonalilty'

problem. > > Now how in @^#$ am I suppose to shim this scope when it's mounted. Man

that > > looks like a non-newmoon night task. I am not gonna try that in the

complete > > dark!

>



Hi Jeff,



To cut down on the iterations when polar aligning your scope

for each iteration you should only adjust the altitude and azimuth

adjustments to move Polaris half-way to the center of your finder (or

eyepiece when you get sufficiently close). If you put Polaris in

the center each time you will overshoot the correction and it will

take more iterations.



-Ray Gralak







---------------

Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.

click.egroups.com/1/6137/7/_/3615/_/962645188/

---------------



----------------------------

#731 Jul 3, 2000

Hi Ron,



Usually the 1/2 way won't work well if the mount is not very level.

In that case, you will get one axis affecting the other. Otherwise it

has always worked quite well for me (30+ times with my 1200). Of course

the OTA has to be close to orthogonal too.



-Ray

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Ron Wodaski [mailto:ronw@...]

> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 10:49 AM

> To: ap-gto@...

> Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report

>

>

> It's not always the case that half-way will work for you, and I wondered

> why. I have a theory, of course g>.

>

> The basis of my theory is this (untested) assumption, but I think it's true:

> because the two coordinate systems (alt-az and equatorial) are oriented so

> differently, making a change to a single axis (alt or az) can affect

> position in the other coordinate system along two axes (RA and Dec).

>

> For example, if one axis (alt or az) is very close to correct, and the other

> is not, you should avoid making changes to the one that is close to correct,

> and concentrate on getting the other one close to correct, too. I haven't

> had to do this kind of polar alignment for several months, so my experience

> isn't fresh. I'm currently using a polar scope on an NJP 160, although I

> have a 400 GTO coming and will have to re-learn these skills.

>

> But as I recall, if one axis was close, and I made adjustments to two axes

> (alt and az), the axis that was close to correct would oscillate

> (overshoot). I would then move that axis to the mid position (between the

> extremes of the oscillation), and then leave it alone and concentrate on

> bringing the other axis close to correct position. Once both were of nearly

> equal magnitude, I could then quickly get a good alignment by adjusting both

> together.

>

> I have even had situations where I have had to go _double_ the distance,

> rather than half the distance, to get aligned in a reasonable number of

> iterations. If memory serves, that tended to be the case when I was aligning

> to stars on different sides of the meridian, but it has been a while and I'm

> not entirely sure.

>

> Ron Wodaski

> www.newastro.com

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Ray Gralak [mailto:ray@...]

> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 10:27 AM

> To: ap-gto@...

> Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report

>

>

> > > I figured six times meant I might have the dreaded 'orthogonalilty'

> problem.

> > > Now how in @^#$ am I suppose to shim this scope when it's mounted. Man

> that

> > > looks like a non-newmoon night task. I am not gonna try that in the

> complete

> > > dark!

> >

>

> Hi Jeff,

>

> To cut down on the iterations when polar aligning your scope

> for each iteration you should only adjust the altitude and azimuth

> adjustments to move Polaris half-way to the center of your finder (or

> eyepiece when you get sufficiently close). If you put Polaris in

> the center each time you will overshoot the correction and it will

> take more iterations.

>

> -Ray Gralak

>

>

>

---------------

> Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.

> click.egroups.com/1/6137/7/_/3615/_/962645188/

---------------

>

>

>

>

---------------

> Need a credit card?

> Instant Approval and 0% intro APR with Aria!

> click.egroups.com/1/6034/7/_/3615/_/962646281/

---------------

>

>

>







----------------------------

#733 Jul 3, 2000

Thanks for the tip Ray. You know the ortho check talks about moving halfway

as does one of the polar alignment methods IIRC. My manuals are in the mount

case so I can't refer to them right now. But I don't think method number one

(N. Polar Align) calls for half movements. Thanks. I did level the mount

(habit) so I'll give it a try.



Wonder if the manuals are in Word or sompin'. I think I have a PDF writer

printer driver....



Clear skies,

Jeff

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ray Gralak" ray@...>





> Hi Ron,

>

> Usually the 1/2 way won't work well if the mount is not very level.

> In that case, you will get one axis affecting the other. Otherwise it

> has always worked quite well for me (30+ times with my 1200). Of course

> the OTA has to be close to orthogonal too.

>

> -Ray



----------------------------

#734 Jul 3, 2000

The 1200 is also just plain better for polar aligning than the 600 GTO

mount. There isn't much flexure in the 1200, while the 600 has enough to

cause some trouble during polar alignment. I suppose the flexure will depend

on the weight you've got on the mount. And I can't say that I've tested

orthogonality, though my refractor was best for polar aligning; the 9.25"

SCT was hopeless. g>



Ron Wodaski

www.newastro.com







-----Original Message-----

From: Ray Gralak [mailto:ray@...]

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 11:00 AM

To: ap-gto@...

Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report





Hi Ron,



Usually the 1/2 way won't work well if the mount is not very level.

In that case, you will get one axis affecting the other. Otherwise it

has always worked quite well for me (30+ times with my 1200). Of course

the OTA has to be close to orthogonal too.



-Ray

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Ron Wodaski [mailto:ronw@...]

> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 10:49 AM

> To: ap-gto@...

> Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report

>

>

> It's not always the case that half-way will work for you, and I wondered

> why. I have a theory, of course g>.

>

> The basis of my theory is this (untested) assumption, but I think it's

true: > because the two coordinate systems (alt-az and equatorial) are oriented so

> differently, making a change to a single axis (alt or az) can affect

> position in the other coordinate system along two axes (RA and Dec).

>

> For example, if one axis (alt or az) is very close to correct, and the

other > is not, you should avoid making changes to the one that is close to

correct, > and concentrate on getting the other one close to correct, too. I haven't

> had to do this kind of polar alignment for several months, so my

experience > isn't fresh. I'm currently using a polar scope on an NJP 160, although I

> have a 400 GTO coming and will have to re-learn these skills.

>

> But as I recall, if one axis was close, and I made adjustments to two axes

> (alt and az), the axis that was close to correct would oscillate

> (overshoot). I would then move that axis to the mid position (between the

> extremes of the oscillation), and then leave it alone and concentrate on

> bringing the other axis close to correct position. Once both were of

nearly > equal magnitude, I could then quickly get a good alignment by adjusting

both > together.

>

> I have even had situations where I have had to go _double_ the distance,

> rather than half the distance, to get aligned in a reasonable number of

> iterations. If memory serves, that tended to be the case when I was

aligning > to stars on different sides of the meridian, but it has been a while and

I'm > not entirely sure.

>

> Ron Wodaski

> www.newastro.com

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Ray Gralak [mailto:ray@...]

> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 10:27 AM

> To: ap-gto@...

> Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report

>

>

> > > I figured six times meant I might have the dreaded 'orthogonalilty'

> problem.

> > > Now how in @^#$ am I suppose to shim this scope when it's mounted. Man

> that

> > > looks like a non-newmoon night task. I am not gonna try that in the

> complete

> > > dark!

> >

>

> Hi Jeff,

>

> To cut down on the iterations when polar aligning your scope

> for each iteration you should only adjust the altitude and azimuth

> adjustments to move Polaris half-way to the center of your finder (or

> eyepiece when you get sufficiently close). If you put Polaris in

> the center each time you will overshoot the correction and it will

> take more iterations.

>

> -Ray Gralak

>

>

>

---------------

> Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.

> click.egroups.com/1/6137/7/_/3615/_/962645188/

---------------

>

>

>

>

---------------

> Need a credit card?

> Instant Approval and 0% intro APR with Aria!

> click.egroups.com/1/6034/7/_/3615/_/962646281/

---------------

>

>

>



---------------

0% Introductory APR!

Instant Approval!

Aria Visa - get yours today.

click.egroups.com/1/6035/7/_/3615/_/962647168/

---------------







----------------------------

#735 Jul 3, 2000

The 1200 is also just plain better for polar aligning than the 600 GTO

> mount. There isn't much flexure in the 1200, while the 600 has enough to

> cause some trouble during polar alignment. I suppose the flexure will depend



Perhaps, but I learned this technique with my old Vixen GP + SS2000+ Tak FS-102.

This mount is much more flexible than a 600g>. It worked great then as long

as the mount was level which was easy to do with the tripod.



-Ray Gralak



----------------------------

#736 Jul 3, 2000

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ron Wodaski" ronw@...>

> orthogonality, though my refractor was best for polar aligning; the 9.25"

> SCT was hopeless. g>



Why? Because of the mirror shift I guess? I found that when you tighten the

two azimuth lock screws the mount does shift. Of course there is 40 pounds

or more of stress. I found the movement about 3 to 4 arc-minutes and I could

'lead' them (though a PITA). For imaging you want an alignment as close as

possible if not perfect. But realistically how close is close enough?







Clear skies,

Jeff



BTW: Can you autograph my copy of TNA? vbg>



----------------------------

#737 Jul 3, 2000

In a message dated 7/3/00 1:04:38 PM EST, ray@... writes:



<

Usually the 1/2 way won't work well if the mount is not very level.

In that case, you will get one axis affecting the other. Otherwise it

has always worked quite well for me (30+ times with my 1200). Of course

the OTA has to be close to orthogonal too.



-Ray >>



okay, i've been doing this, but didn't realize about it needing to be level,

thanks



----------------------------

#738 Jul 3, 2000

I have never really tried to level the AP mount prior to polar aligning.

I'll have to see if that makes a difference. I took literally the advice

that leveling wasn't "necessary," but perhaps it is desirable. g>



Ron Wodaski

www.newastro.com







-----Original Message-----

From: Ray Gralak [mailto:ray@...]

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 11:48 AM

To: ap-gto@...

Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report



> The 1200 is also just plain better for polar aligning than the 600 GTO

> mount. There isn't much flexure in the 1200, while the 600 has enough to

> cause some trouble during polar alignment. I suppose the flexure will

depend



Perhaps, but I learned this technique with my old Vixen GP + SS2000+ Tak

FS-102.

This mount is much more flexible than a 600g>. It worked great then as long

as the mount was level which was easy to do with the tripod.



-Ray Gralak



---------------

Free Worldwide Calling with Firetalk!

Click Here:

click.egroups.com/1/5481/7/_/3615/_/962650079/

---------------



----------------------------

#739 Jul 3, 2000

You can actually get some advantages from not being perfectly polar aligned.

You can cover backlash in Dec, for example, by deliberately mis-aligning so

that the mount is always pushing the Dec in one direction, so that you never

encounter the backlash.



Have you seen my page on the "bat wing" handles for the az lockdowns on the

600? I also am using Mylar washers to reduce friction, so that I can tighten

the az lockdowns and still move the mount well enough. I may have some of

those around, if you can't find the washers at your local hardware store.



Ron Wodaski

www.newastro.com







-----Original Message-----

From: Jeffrey D. Gortatowsky [mailto:myrocketcatos@...]

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 11:56 AM

To: ap-gto@...

Subject: Re: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report





----- Original Message -----

From: "Ron Wodaski" ronw@...>

> orthogonality, though my refractor was best for polar aligning; the 9.25"

> SCT was hopeless. g>



Why? Because of the mirror shift I guess? I found that when you tighten the

two azimuth lock screws the mount does shift. Of course there is 40 pounds

or more of stress. I found the movement about 3 to 4 arc-minutes and I could

'lead' them (though a PITA). For imaging you want an alignment as close as

possible if not perfect. But realistically how close is close enough?







Clear skies,

Jeff



BTW: Can you autograph my copy of TNA? vbg>







---------------

Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.

click.egroups.com/1/4633/7/_/3615/_/962650430/

---------------



----------------------------

#740 Jul 3, 2000

Ron I had those 'bat handles' on order and delivered before the mount

arrived! I just thought I'd try it 'stock' first in case there was a problem

and it had to be returned. Remember who 'suggested' them? ;^D



Thanks for the tip about pushing the Dec to take up the gear backlash. But I

am not planning to start imaging for awhile (he saysg>). Too many things to

see with my eyes first. Besides I am waiting for the FSQ156 and my AP900GTO

first.



Clear skies,

Jeff



----- Original Message -----

From: "Ron Wodaski" ronw@...>

To: ap-gto@...>

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 12:12 PM

Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report





> You can actually get some advantages from not being perfectly polar

aligned.

> You can cover backlash in Dec, for example, by deliberately mis-aligning

so

> that the mount is always pushing the Dec in one direction, so that you

never

> encounter the backlash.

>

> Have you seen my page on the "bat wing" handles for the az lockdowns on

the

> 600? I also am using Mylar washers to reduce friction, so that I can

tighten

> the az lockdowns and still move the mount well enough. I may have some of

> those around, if you can't find the washers at your local hardware store.

>

> Ron Wodaski

> www.newastro.com

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Jeffrey D. Gortatowsky [mailto:myrocketcatos@...]

> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 11:56 AM

> To: ap-gto@...

> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Ron Wodaski" ronw@...>

> > orthogonality, though my refractor was best for polar aligning; the

9.25"

> > SCT was hopeless. g>

>

> Why? Because of the mirror shift I guess? I found that when you tighten

the

> two azimuth lock screws the mount does shift. Of course there is 40 pounds

> or more of stress. I found the movement about 3 to 4 arc-minutes and I

could

> 'lead' them (though a PITA). For imaging you want an alignment as close as

> possible if not perfect. But realistically how close is close enough?

>

>

>

> Clear skies,

> Jeff

>

> BTW: Can you autograph my copy of TNA? vbg>

>

>

>

---------------

> Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers.

> click.egroups.com/1/4633/7/_/3615/_/962650430/

---------------

>

>

>

>

---------------

> Explore the popular High-End Room -

> Go To Where The Smart People Shop-uBid.com

> click.egroups.com/1/6141/7/_/3615/_/962651290/

---------------

>

>







----------------------------

#741 Jul 3, 2000

I have gotten much better results when leveling the 400goto. When leveling

and using an ap polar scope, the mount guides much easier and more

accurately.

Brian

>>-----Original Message-----

>>From: Ron Wodaski [mailto:ronw@...]

>>Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 2:09 PM

>>To: ap-gto@...

>>Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report

>>

>>

>>I have never really tried to level the AP mount prior to

>>polar aligning.

>>I'll have to see if that makes a difference. I took literally

>>the advice

>>that leveling wasn't "necessary," but perhaps it is desirable. g>

>>

>>Ron Wodaski

>>www.newastro.com

>>

>>

>>

>>-----Original Message-----

>>From: Ray Gralak [mailto:ray@...]

>>Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 11:48 AM

>>To: ap-gto@...

>>Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report

>>

>>

>>> The 1200 is also just plain better for polar aligning than

>>the 600 GTO

>>> mount. There isn't much flexure in the 1200, while the 600

>>has enough to

>>> cause some trouble during polar alignment. I suppose the

>>flexure will

>>depend

>>

>>Perhaps, but I learned this technique with my old Vixen GP +

>>SS2000+ Tak

>>FS-102.

>>This mount is much more flexible than a 600g>. It worked

>>great then as long

>>as the mount was level which was easy to do with the tripod.

>>

>>-Ray Gralak

>>

---------------

>>----------

>>Free Worldwide Calling with Firetalk!

>>Click Here:

>>click.egroups.com/1/5481/7/_/3615/_/962650079/

---------------

>>----------

>>

>>

>>

>>

---------------

>>----------

>>Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to

>>the rescue.

>>click.egroups.com/1/6137/7/_/3615/_/962651119/

---------------

>>----------

>>

>>



----------------------------

#742 Jul 3, 2000

Hi Ron,

I've been using those "bat wing" handles from McMaster Carr now for a couple

of weeks and can't get over how much nicer it is to use them over the OEM

set-up.

Along with the Mylar washers and AP stainless steel washer, I'm still using

a wave washer which I think helps to smooth/steady out the adjustments one

step further. When turning the azimuth knobs the star moves in a straight

line now and doesn't shift when a snug down the "bat handle". Definitely

makes getting polar aligned much easier without the hassle of using the

Allen wrenches.

Stephen



-----Original Message-----

From: Ron Wodaski ronw@...>

To: ap-gto@... ap-gto@...>

Date: Monday, July 03, 2000 2:08 PM

Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report

>Have you seen my page on the "bat wing" handles for the az lockdowns on the

>600? I also am using Mylar washers to reduce friction, so that I can

tighten >the az lockdowns and still move the mount well enough. I may have some of

>those around, if you can't find the washers at your local hardware store.

>

>Ron Wodaski

>www.newastro.com



----------------------------

#743 Jul 3, 2000

Hi Jeff,

Yes, thanks for the suggestion. Its the only way to fly......I mean slew!!!

Stephen



-----Original Message-----

From: Jeffrey D. Gortatowsky myrocketcatos@...>

To: ap-gto@... ap-gto@...>

Date: Monday, July 03, 2000 2:37 PM

Subject: Re: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report



>Ron I had those 'bat handles' on order and delivered before the mount

>arrived! I just thought I'd try it 'stock' first in case there was a

problem >and it had to be returned. Remember who 'suggested' them? ;^D

>

>Thanks for the tip about pushing the Dec to take up the gear backlash. But

I >am not planning to start imaging for awhile (he saysg>). Too many things

to >see with my eyes first. Besides I am waiting for the FSQ156 and my AP900GTO

>first.

>

>Clear skies,

>Jeff

>



----------------------------

#744 Jul 3, 2000

Where do I get those bat wings? Where is McMaster Carr?



-----Original Message-----

From: Stephen E. Russell [mailto:sjruss55@...]

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 12:50 PM

To: ap-gto@...

Subject: Re: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report





Hi Ron,

I've been using those "bat wing" handles from McMaster Carr now for a couple

of weeks and can't get over how much nicer it is to use them over the OEM

set-up.

Along with the Mylar washers and AP stainless steel washer, I'm still using

a wave washer which I think helps to smooth/steady out the adjustments one

step further. When turning the azimuth knobs the star moves in a straight

line now and doesn't shift when a snug down the "bat handle". Definitely

makes getting polar aligned much easier without the hassle of using the

Allen wrenches.

Stephen



-----Original Message-----

From: Ron Wodaski ronw@...>

To: ap-gto@... ap-gto@...>

Date: Monday, July 03, 2000 2:08 PM

Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report

>Have you seen my page on the "bat wing" handles for the az lockdowns on the

>600? I also am using Mylar washers to reduce friction, so that I can

tighten >the az lockdowns and still move the mount well enough. I may have some of

>those around, if you can't find the washers at your local hardware store.

>

>Ron Wodaski

>www.newastro.com







---------------

Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!

Host your next egroup meeting live on Firetalk.

Click here!

click.egroups.com/1/5478/7/_/3615/_/962653448/

---------------







----------------------------

#745 Jul 3, 2000

I have a page on AP 600 mods at:



www.wodaski.com/wodaski/ap600clamp.htm



There is a link on that page that takes you right to the McMaster-Carr

catalog page:



www.mcmaster-carr.com/cgi/loadpage.cgi?pagenum=1870&catnum=106



You will need to have the Adobe Acrobat reader installed to view the catalog

pages, but if you don't, there is a link to download the Acrobat Reader on

the McMaster-Carr page.



Ron Wodaski

www.newastro.com







-----Original Message-----

From: Mark B. Wilson [mailto:Markw@...]

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 3:59 PM

To: ap-gto@...

Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report





Where do I get those bat wings? Where is McMaster Carr?



-----Original Message-----

From: Stephen E. Russell [mailto:sjruss55@...]

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 12:50 PM

To: ap-gto@...

Subject: Re: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report





Hi Ron,

I've been using those "bat wing" handles from McMaster Carr now for a couple

of weeks and can't get over how much nicer it is to use them over the OEM

set-up.

Along with the Mylar washers and AP stainless steel washer, I'm still using

a wave washer which I think helps to smooth/steady out the adjustments one

step further. When turning the azimuth knobs the star moves in a straight

line now and doesn't shift when a snug down the "bat handle". Definitely

makes getting polar aligned much easier without the hassle of using the

Allen wrenches.

Stephen



-----Original Message-----

From: Ron Wodaski ronw@...>

To: ap-gto@... ap-gto@...>

Date: Monday, July 03, 2000 2:08 PM

Subject: RE: [ap-gto] 400 GTO First report

>Have you seen my page on the "bat wing" handles for the az lockdowns on the

>600? I also am using Mylar washers to reduce friction, so that I can

tighten >the az lockdowns and still move the mount well enough. I may have some of

>those around, if you can't find the washers at your local hardware store.

>

>Ron Wodaski

>www.newastro.com







---------------

Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!

Host your next egroup meeting live on Firetalk.

Click here!

click.egroups.com/1/5478/7/_/3615/_/962653448/

---------------









---------------

Need a credit card?

Instant Approval and 0% intro APR with Aria!

click.egroups.com/1/6034/7/_/3615/_/962665502/

---------------



Contact Us
This Site's Privacy Policy
Google's privacy policies

S
e
n
i
o
r
T
u
b
e
.
o
r
g