VintageBigBlue.org

 

Re: Ovision worm motives


Aug 12, 2008

 


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

#38787 Aug 12, 2008

I am new to this forum, although I have had a G-11 for six years, using

it with my 6" AP refractor for visual only. I know all about the worm

gear problems!



It seems that Mr. Knowle is very enthusiastic about the Ovision worm,

so I have to wonder if he has any financial interest in it. Don't get

me wrong, I am "all for" being excited for G-11 worm improvements, but

he sure is posting a lot.



Mr. Knowle, do you have any financial interest or otherwise in this

product.



Thanks,



Dan



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

#38790 Aug 12, 2008

Daniel,



I will let Greg speak for himself, but I believe he has stated that he

is in no way affiliated with the Ovision folks. Greg is just a

passionate person and when he finds something of merit he likes to

push it out to others. I think that is all there is to this, but I

will let Greg say so too. I think if you read much in the archives

you will find strong evidence of Greg's passion for the hobby g>.



Frank Barrett

celestialwonders.com



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Hanon" drshanon@...>

wrote: >

> I am new to this forum, although I have had a G-11 for six years, using

> it with my 6" AP refractor for visual only. I know all about the worm

> gear problems!

>

> It seems that Mr. Knowle is very enthusiastic about the Ovision worm,

> so I have to wonder if he has any financial interest in it. Don't get

> me wrong, I am "all for" being excited for G-11 worm improvements, but

> he sure is posting a lot.

>

> Mr. Knowle, do you have any financial interest or otherwise in this

> product.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Dan

>



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

#38814 Aug 12, 2008

And Roland is well acquainted with Franck so I haven't a clue how to

work out these subtleties. Franck also sells AP mounts and is the guy

who deployed a half dozen of them, maybe more, for some kind of study

in the Antarctic where they were (are?) kept operational through the

winter. "I throw up my hands." People have different views. Rainer

has his own design and is not on board for any of the alternatives,

leastaways, not 100%. regards Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@...> wrote:

>

> Well, I would be willing to spend $500 on my new G-11 if I thought

> that the returns would warrant the investment. Perhaps it would? I

> guess I will just have to give it some more thought and see if I can

> get some more input.

> The tight nature of the worm assembly still does not seem right to me.

> Roland Christian told me that the one thing that would definitely

> cause PE was if the worm was too tight and the gear was riding too

> deep in the wheel.

> Floyd

>



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

#38817 Aug 12, 2008

Hey, I am not saying the worm block doesn't work or is too tight. I am

just saying that being tight and rough to turn just doesn't seem

right. I just don't understand how the roughness would not be

transmitted into the system. But, I am willing to ge convinced and

perhaps to bu one.

Floyd --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote:

>

> And Roland is well acquainted with Franck so I haven't a clue how to

> work out these subtleties. Franck also sells AP mounts and is the guy

> who deployed a half dozen of them, maybe more, for some kind of study

> in the Antarctic where they were (are?) kept operational through the

> winter. "I throw up my hands." People have different views. Rainer

> has his own design and is not on board for any of the alternatives,

> leastaways, not 100%. regards Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> >

> > Well, I would be willing to spend $500 on my new G-11 if I thought

> > that the returns would warrant the investment. Perhaps it would? I

> > guess I will just have to give it some more thought and see if I can

> > get some more input.

> > The tight nature of the worm assembly still does not seem right to me.

> > Roland Christian told me that the one thing that would definitely

> > cause PE was if the worm was too tight and the gear was riding too

> > deep in the wheel.

> > Floyd

> >

>



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

#38824 Aug 13, 2008

Hi Greg,



> Rainer

> has his own design and is not on board for any of the alternatives,



I have been reading this and it has been proven (astrokattner did

exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with radial ball

bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you press

them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but still

some problems.



I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS enough

space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.



Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design and I

told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)



Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end of the

wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible balls

makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball axial

bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really do not

need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis running

smoothly.



I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago and the

price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm included but

with 2 axial bearings.



The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass worm. I

immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.



regards Rainer







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

#38827 Aug 13, 2008

Hi Greg,



I just checked an image send by the builder of the first RS-Wormblock.

It is dated May 3rd 2005 :-)



rainerehlert.com/astro/worm/PPWB02.jpg



Already more then 3 Years ago :-))



regards Rainer



>

> Hi Greg,

>

>

> > Rainer

> > has his own design and is not on board for any of the alternatives,

>

> I have been reading this and it has been proven (astrokattner did

> exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with radial ball

> bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you press

> them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but still

> some problems.

>

> I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

> integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS enough

> space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

>

> Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design and I

> told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

>

> Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end of the

> wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible balls

> makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball axial

> bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really do not

> need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis running

> smoothly.

>

> I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago and the

> price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm included but

> with 2 axial bearings.

>

> The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass worm. I

> immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

>

> regards Rainer

>



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

#38829 Aug 13, 2008

Hi Rainer,

You have brought up the same concern as I did, why is the Ovision set

up so tight as to be rough and stiff? Just can not figure out why this

would be a good thing.

I would have to agree that the axial ball bearing sound like a better

idea. So, you think that a person could insert a set of bearings in

the Ovision without modification?

Floyd --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Rainer" rsbfoto@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Greg,

>

>

> > Rainer

> > has his own design and is not on board for any of the alternatives,

>

> I have been reading this and it has been proven (astrokattner did

> exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with radial ball

> bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you press

> them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but still

> some problems.

>

> I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

> integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS enough

> space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

>

> Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design and I

> told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

>

> Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end of the

> wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible balls

> makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball axial

> bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really do not

> need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis running

> smoothly.

>

> I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago and the

> price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm included but

> with 2 axial bearings.

>

> The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass worm. I

> immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

>

> regards Rainer

>



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

#38831 Aug 13, 2008

Rainer



As I have stated before, I personally do not believe that axial bearings are

required nor necessarily desirable in this application as the deep groove

ball races require a degree of pre-load to keep them running true. The

results from the OVision block and my preliminary results with Martins block

would seem to bear this out. There are also some other fine (more expensive)

mounts out there that only use deep groove radial ball race bearings on

their worms too.



Regards

Mark



2008/8/13 Rainer rsbfoto@...>

> Hi Greg,

>

> > Rainer

> > has his own design and is not on board for any of the alternatives,

>

> I have been reading this and it has been proven (astrokattner did

> exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with radial ball

> bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you press

> them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but still

> some problems.

>

> I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

> integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS enough

> space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

>

> Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design and I

> told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

>

> Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end of the

> wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible balls

> makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball axial

> bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really do not

> need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis running

> smoothly.

>

> I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago and the

> price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm included but

> with 2 axial bearings.

>

> The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass worm. I

> immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

>

> regards Rainer

>

>

>





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







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

#38833 Aug 13, 2008

Hi Floyd,

> I would have to agree that the axial ball bearing sound like a better

> idea. So, you think that a person could insert a set of bearings in

> the Ovision without modification?



I think it is not possible without modification as you need on each

side +- 6.5mm or 7mm deeper bores in order to allocate the axial bearings



My assumption is that the stiffness in turning the worm comes from the

lateral pressure applied on the radial ball bearings ...



regards Rainer



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

#38834 Aug 13, 2008

Hi Mark,



Got it, but what makes me wonder is the usage of the words ...



... believe ... and ... seem ...



So you are not sure, right ? but I am sure because i went thru all of

it allready ... :-)



Anyhow, there are many different designs, but honestly I have never

seen deep into an AP worm or a Takahashi worm or a Paramount worm or

whatever other good ecuatorial mount assembly so I can not assure how

they are built ...



If you ahd a chance to have a look into it that is good and so you

know more about it then me :-)



That is all I can say and I will not comment on this anymore :-) It is

just a waste of time for me as I am very busy building my new

observatory :-)



rainerehlert.com/ObsReal14/cons/Pano-Obser-02.jpg



Have a nice time and good luck ...



regards Rainer



>

> Rainer

>

> As I have stated before, I personally do not believe that axial

bearings are > required nor necessarily desirable in this application as the deep

groove > ball races require a degree of pre-load to keep them running true. The

> results from the OVision block and my preliminary results with

Martins block > would seem to bear this out. There are also some other fine (more

expensive) > mounts out there that only use deep groove radial ball race bearings on

> their worms too.

>

> Regards

> Mark

>

> 2008/8/13 Rainer rsbfoto@...>

>

> > Hi Greg,

> >

> > > Rainer

> > > has his own design and is not on board for any of the alternatives,

> >

> > I have been reading this and it has been proven (astrokattner did

> > exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with radial ball

> > bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you press

> > them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but still

> > some problems.

> >

> > I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

> > integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS enough

> > space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

> >

> > Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design and I

> > told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> > integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

> >

> > Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end of the

> > wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible balls

> > makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball axial

> > bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really do not

> > need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis running

> > smoothly.

> >

> > I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago and the

> > price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm included but

> > with 2 axial bearings.

> >

> > The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass worm. I

> > immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

> >

> > regards Rainer

> >

> >

> >

>

>

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

>



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

#38836 Aug 13, 2008

Hi Rainer



Nothing in life is certain (except as they say death and taxes :-), and we

are not talking about research grade mounts but mid-range amateur mounts.

Since I got interested in the 76 second error I have looked at how the worms

in Mountain Instruments, Vixen Atlux, Paramounts, and even LX200's are

mounted. Some use axial bearing devices some don't, none of them seem to

have the G11 problems with 76s, however they all have monolithic block

arrangements.



I cannot guarantee that the 76 second will be 100% eliminated, but from what

I have seen from Martins block - and the OVision results other people are

posting - it will be reduced to the level where it no longer concerns us.

Can you see evidence for it not being controlled in the results?



So why add more engineering complexity and potential for problems. Do you

warrant that adding axial bearings will not introduce another source of

error?



Thanks for the luck - we may need a pinch ;-)



Regards

Mark



2008/8/13 Rainer rsbfoto@...>

> Hi Mark,

>

> Got it, but what makes me wonder is the usage of the words ...

>

> ... believe ... and ... seem ...

>

> So you are not sure, right ? but I am sure because i went thru all of

> it allready ... :-)

>

> Anyhow, there are many different designs, but honestly I have never

> seen deep into an AP worm or a Takahashi worm or a Paramount worm or

> whatever other good ecuatorial mount assembly so I can not assure how

> they are built ...

>

> If you ahd a chance to have a look into it that is good and so you

> know more about it then me :-)

>

> That is all I can say and I will not comment on this anymore :-) It is

> just a waste of time for me as I am very busy building my new

> observatory :-)

>

> rainerehlert.com/ObsReal14/cons/Pano-Obser-02.jpg

>

> Have a nice time and good luck ...

>

> regards Rainer

>

> >

>





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







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

#38841 Aug 13, 2008

Well the only proof is that we have three people operating G11s with

these worms. They seem to be getting good results. Although in the

case of mine, I only did one set of tests. What we haven't had is

someone coming on and saying: "I just tried this and it totally bombed."



I think some people think: well what the hell I'll jump in, and

other's think: I'll wait till there are a dozen or so units in the

field. I can respect that. Usually I try not to order the first of

anything, mainly out of concern about shake-down problems. In this

case however there is sort of a public need for people who want to

deal more aggressively with PE to take the lead. So partly I'm

arguing for a bit of willingness to get ahead of the pack, and

possibly do some public service in the process. In any case it's

easily reversible (unlike some of the procedures discussed here, such

as lapping to deal with the same issues). So the risk is all in the

dough. The $500 is admittedly a potential loss, but what the hell. I

can think of real stoopid stuff I've blown $500 on and no I won't say.

I don't think this is stoopid or completely unknown at this point.

But it is correct that it is not completely established.



I do these things sometimes, it's how I find stuff out. People always

say go to a star party and see what other folks are doing. Well I'm

the guy that people go to see. In my local club there aren't any

vanguard elements so that I can hang back. I just ordered a Zeiss

16.7mm 2" eyepiece that no one has heard of. No one. Only report

I've got is someone who knew someone who said.... Bought a Televue

dioptrx not because I was confident I'd be able to use it on my

Pentaxes, but because I'd fiddle with it and see if I could find a

way. Sail forth, bold Floyd, into the ocean blue!



The amount of money I blew on the Zeiss is less than the Ovision, but

not that much less. OTOH I expect the funds to be 50 - 75%

recoverable if I don't want it. It is after all a zeiss eyepiece.



regards

Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@...> wrote:

>

> Hey, I am not saying the worm block doesn't work or is too tight. I am

> just saying that being tight and rough to turn just doesn't seem

> right. I just don't understand how the roughness would not be

> transmitted into the system. But, I am willing to ge convinced and

> perhaps to bu one.

> Floyd

>



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

#38843 Aug 13, 2008

Hi Greg,

Yeah, if the Ovision turns out to be the best bang for the buck, it

will become an asset when you sell the mount, I am certain of that. If

it does not gain popularity, it will not devalue the mount, again I am

sure of that.

I am considering this option myself, just because I believe the G-11

is a pretty good mount and possibly quite underated and could become a

real sleeper if the Ovision lives up to its literature.

As I stated earlier, the $500 is not a big expense in this hobby. I

have eyepieces that cost more and I certainly have scopes sitting

around not being used that cost a heck of a lot more. :^)

When you think about it, $500 is only 15% of the cost of the G-11

Gemini new. So, not a bad bargain if it improves the performance by

even 15-30%.

I have the order form here, filled out, now I just have to decide

whether to email it to them. ;^)

Floyd

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote:

>

> Well the only proof is that we have three people operating G11s with

> these worms. They seem to be getting good results. Although in the

> case of mine, I only did one set of tests. What we haven't had is

> someone coming on and saying: "I just tried this and it totally bombed."

>

> I think some people think: well what the hell I'll jump in, and

> other's think: I'll wait till there are a dozen or so units in the

> field. I can respect that. Usually I try not to order the first of

> anything, mainly out of concern about shake-down problems. In this

> case however there is sort of a public need for people who want to

> deal more aggressively with PE to take the lead. So partly I'm

> arguing for a bit of willingness to get ahead of the pack, and

> possibly do some public service in the process. In any case it's

> easily reversible (unlike some of the procedures discussed here, such

> as lapping to deal with the same issues). So the risk is all in the

> dough. The $500 is admittedly a potential loss, but what the hell. I

> can think of real stoopid stuff I've blown $500 on and no I won't say.

> I don't think this is stoopid or completely unknown at this point.

> But it is correct that it is not completely established.

>

> I do these things sometimes, it's how I find stuff out. People always

> say go to a star party and see what other folks are doing. Well I'm

> the guy that people go to see. In my local club there aren't any

> vanguard elements so that I can hang back. I just ordered a Zeiss

> 16.7mm 2" eyepiece that no one has heard of. No one. Only report

> I've got is someone who knew someone who said.... Bought a Televue

> dioptrx not because I was confident I'd be able to use it on my

> Pentaxes, but because I'd fiddle with it and see if I could find a

> way. Sail forth, bold Floyd, into the ocean blue!

>

> The amount of money I blew on the Zeiss is less than the Ovision, but

> not that much less. OTOH I expect the funds to be 50 - 75%

> recoverable if I don't want it. It is after all a zeiss eyepiece.

>

> regards

> Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> >

> > Hey, I am not saying the worm block doesn't work or is too tight. I am

> > just saying that being tight and rough to turn just doesn't seem

> > right. I just don't understand how the roughness would not be

> > transmitted into the system. But, I am willing to ge convinced and

> > perhaps to bu one.

> > Floyd

> >

>







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

#38844 Aug 13, 2008

BTW you did catch the post that says the Ovision can be adjusted to

turn freely if that's your desire? However we don't know what the

performance effect would be. regards Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@...> wrote:

>

> Hey, I am not saying the worm block doesn't work or is too tight. I am

> just saying that being tight and rough to turn just doesn't seem

> right. I just don't understand how the roughness would not be

> transmitted into the system. But, I am willing to ge convinced and

> perhaps to bu one.

> Floyd

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@> wrote:

> >

> > And Roland is well acquainted with Franck so I haven't a clue how to

> > work out these subtleties. Franck also sells AP mounts and is the guy

> > who deployed a half dozen of them, maybe more, for some kind of study

> > in the Antarctic where they were (are?) kept operational through the

> > winter. "I throw up my hands." People have different views. Rainer

> > has his own design and is not on board for any of the alternatives,

> > leastaways, not 100%. regards Greg N

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Well, I would be willing to spend $500 on my new G-11 if I thought

> > > that the returns would warrant the investment. Perhaps it would? I

> > > guess I will just have to give it some more thought and see if I can

> > > get some more input.

> > > The tight nature of the worm assembly still does not seem right

to me.

> > > Roland Christian told me that the one thing that would definitely

> > > cause PE was if the worm was too tight and the gear was riding too

> > > deep in the wheel.

> > > Floyd

> > >

> >

>



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

#38848 Aug 13, 2008

Sit on the form till next week. You have a reputation of "being

tough" to uphold! Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Greg,

> Yeah, if the Ovision turns out to be the best bang for the buck, it

> will become an asset when you sell the mount, I am certain of that. If

> it does not gain popularity, it will not devalue the mount, again I am

> sure of that.

> I am considering this option myself, just because I believe the G-11

> is a pretty good mount and possibly quite underated and could become a

> real sleeper if the Ovision lives up to its literature.

> As I stated earlier, the $500 is not a big expense in this hobby. I

> have eyepieces that cost more and I certainly have scopes sitting

> around not being used that cost a heck of a lot more. :^)

> When you think about it, $500 is only 15% of the cost of the G-11

> Gemini new. So, not a bad bargain if it improves the performance by

> even 15-30%.

> I have the order form here, filled out, now I just have to decide

> whether to email it to them. ;^)

> Floyd

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@> wrote:

> >

> > Well the only proof is that we have three people operating G11s with

> > these worms. They seem to be getting good results. Although in the

> > case of mine, I only did one set of tests. What we haven't had is

> > someone coming on and saying: "I just tried this and it totally

bombed."

> >

> > I think some people think: well what the hell I'll jump in, and

> > other's think: I'll wait till there are a dozen or so units in the

> > field. I can respect that. Usually I try not to order the first of

> > anything, mainly out of concern about shake-down problems. In this

> > case however there is sort of a public need for people who want to

> > deal more aggressively with PE to take the lead. So partly I'm

> > arguing for a bit of willingness to get ahead of the pack, and

> > possibly do some public service in the process. In any case it's

> > easily reversible (unlike some of the procedures discussed here, such

> > as lapping to deal with the same issues). So the risk is all in the

> > dough. The $500 is admittedly a potential loss, but what the hell. I

> > can think of real stoopid stuff I've blown $500 on and no I won't say.

> > I don't think this is stoopid or completely unknown at this point.

> > But it is correct that it is not completely established.

> >

> > I do these things sometimes, it's how I find stuff out. People always

> > say go to a star party and see what other folks are doing. Well I'm

> > the guy that people go to see. In my local club there aren't any

> > vanguard elements so that I can hang back. I just ordered a Zeiss

> > 16.7mm 2" eyepiece that no one has heard of. No one. Only report

> > I've got is someone who knew someone who said.... Bought a Televue

> > dioptrx not because I was confident I'd be able to use it on my

> > Pentaxes, but because I'd fiddle with it and see if I could find a

> > way. Sail forth, bold Floyd, into the ocean blue!

> >

> > The amount of money I blew on the Zeiss is less than the Ovision, but

> > not that much less. OTOH I expect the funds to be 50 - 75%

> > recoverable if I don't want it. It is after all a zeiss eyepiece.

> >

> > regards

> > Greg N

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hey, I am not saying the worm block doesn't work or is too

tight. I am

> > > just saying that being tight and rough to turn just doesn't seem

> > > right. I just don't understand how the roughness would not be

> > > transmitted into the system. But, I am willing to ge convinced and

> > > perhaps to bu one.

> > > Floyd

> > >

> >

>







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

#38849 Aug 13, 2008

What was the Precise Parts design? anyone know? How many were sold?



I heard it was a "floating worm" but I'm now not so sure what that

means. I used to think it meant spring loaded in such a way that

spring pressure was needed to make contact with the mount.



regards

Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Rainer" rsbfoto@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Greg,

>

> I just checked an image send by the builder of the first RS-Wormblock.

> It is dated May 3rd 2005 :-)

>

> rainerehlert.com/astro/worm/PPWB02.jpg

>

> Already more then 3 Years ago :-))

>

> regards Rainer

>

>

> >

> > Hi Greg,

> >

> >

> > > Rainer

> > > has his own design and is not on board for any of the alternatives,

> >

> > I have been reading this and it has been proven (astrokattner did

> > exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with radial ball

> > bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you press

> > them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but still

> > some problems.

> >

> > I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

> > integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS enough

> > space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

> >

> > Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design and I

> > told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> > integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

> >

> > Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end of the

> > wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible balls

> > makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball axial

> > bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really do not

> > need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis running

> > smoothly.

> >

> > I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago and the

> > price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm included but

> > with 2 axial bearings.

> >

> > The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass worm. I

> > immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

> >

> > regards Rainer

> >

>



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

#38850 Aug 13, 2008

Floyd I think you should write to Franck and ask him. He's very

forthcoming. Share the answer with us. Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Rainer,

> You have brought up the same concern as I did, why is the Ovision set

> up so tight as to be rough and stiff? Just can not figure out why this

> would be a good thing.

> I would have to agree that the axial ball bearing sound like a better

> idea. So, you think that a person could insert a set of bearings in

> the Ovision without modification?

> Floyd

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Rainer" rsbfoto@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Greg,

> >

> >

> > > Rainer

> > > has his own design and is not on board for any of the alternatives,

> >

> > I have been reading this and it has been proven (astrokattner did

> > exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with radial ball

> > bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you press

> > them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but still

> > some problems.

> >

> > I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

> > integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS enough

> > space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

> >

> > Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design and I

> > told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> > integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

> >

> > Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end of the

> > wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible balls

> > makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball axial

> > bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really do not

> > need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis running

> > smoothly.

> >

> > I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago and the

> > price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm included but

> > with 2 axial bearings.

> >

> > The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass worm. I

> > immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

> >

> > regards Rainer

> >

>



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

#38851 Aug 13, 2008

Yes:



In off-list email with Franck, he said that he understood what Rainer

was saying but considered that there was more than one way to skin

this cat.



The problem here is that when we're looking at these very fine

executions with different design concepts behind them, the average

person really can't judge. Franck understood Rainer's point but

evidently felt in his own tests that he could proceed in the way he

did. If the Ovision worms perform consistently over time, then I guess

that's the main thing. Nonetheless when you see the kind of work that

Rainer does you wish all these guys could agree on the fine details.



But what I'm really enjoying is that we're getting an education in the

design aspects of high performance equipment. Reasonable people can

disagree about what can be done, what is needed, and what is cost

effective. This is great stuff in the sense that part of what I've

enjoyed about astronomy is that virtually all the equipment

considerations constitute an introduction to basic engineering

principles: function, cost, technical limits, etc. We are seeing this

in action on this worm debate.



I wouldn't be surprised if Franck alters the design at some point.

The current Ovision worm is actually the 2nd model they put out.

Someday there may be an O-3. We're certainly in a better place than

last year when all we could do is send letters to Scott and hope for

the best.



regards

Greg N



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Crossley" public@...> wrote:

>

> Rainer

>

> As I have stated before, I personally do not believe that axial

bearings are

> required nor necessarily desirable in this application as the deep

groove

> ball races require a degree of pre-load to keep them running true. The

> results from the OVision block and my preliminary results with

Martins block

> would seem to bear this out. There are also some other fine (more

expensive)

> mounts out there that only use deep groove radial ball race bearings on

> their worms too.

>

> Regards

> Mark

>

> 2008/8/13 Rainer rsbfoto@...>

>

> > Hi Greg,

> >

> > > Rainer

> > > has his own design and is not on board for any of the alternatives,

> >

> > I have been reading this and it has been proven (astrokattner did

> > exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with radial ball

> > bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you press

> > them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but still

> > some problems.

> >

> > I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

> > integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS enough

> > space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

> >

> > Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design and I

> > told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> > integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

> >

> > Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end of the

> > wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible balls

> > makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball axial

> > bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really do not

> > need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis running

> > smoothly.

> >

> > I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago and the

> > price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm included but

> > with 2 axial bearings.

> >

> > The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass worm. I

> > immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

> >

> > regards Rainer

> >

> >

> >

>

>

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

>







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

#38853 Aug 13, 2008

Yup! Plus I am reviewing the data from the last tests I did on my

mount and comparing it to the data that is now available. My worm and

all right now looks pretty good. But, maybe the Ovision would have

some improvement?

Floyd --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote:

>

> Sit on the form till next week. You have a reputation of "being

> tough" to uphold! Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Greg,

> > Yeah, if the Ovision turns out to be the best bang for the buck, it

> > will become an asset when you sell the mount, I am certain of that. If

> > it does not gain popularity, it will not devalue the mount, again I am

> > sure of that.

> > I am considering this option myself, just because I believe the G-11

> > is a pretty good mount and possibly quite underated and could become a

> > real sleeper if the Ovision lives up to its literature.

> > As I stated earlier, the $500 is not a big expense in this hobby. I

> > have eyepieces that cost more and I certainly have scopes sitting

> > around not being used that cost a heck of a lot more. :^)

> > When you think about it, $500 is only 15% of the cost of the G-11

> > Gemini new. So, not a bad bargain if it improves the performance by

> > even 15-30%.

> > I have the order form here, filled out, now I just have to decide

> > whether to email it to them. ;^)

> > Floyd

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Well the only proof is that we have three people operating G11s with

> > > these worms. They seem to be getting good results. Although in the

> > > case of mine, I only did one set of tests. What we haven't had is

> > > someone coming on and saying: "I just tried this and it totally

> bombed."

> > >

> > > I think some people think: well what the hell I'll jump in, and

> > > other's think: I'll wait till there are a dozen or so units in the

> > > field. I can respect that. Usually I try not to order the first of

> > > anything, mainly out of concern about shake-down problems. In this

> > > case however there is sort of a public need for people who want to

> > > deal more aggressively with PE to take the lead. So partly I'm

> > > arguing for a bit of willingness to get ahead of the pack, and

> > > possibly do some public service in the process. In any case it's

> > > easily reversible (unlike some of the procedures discussed here,

such

> > > as lapping to deal with the same issues). So the risk is all in the

> > > dough. The $500 is admittedly a potential loss, but what the

hell. I

> > > can think of real stoopid stuff I've blown $500 on and no I

won't say.

> > > I don't think this is stoopid or completely unknown at this point.

> > > But it is correct that it is not completely established.

> > >

> > > I do these things sometimes, it's how I find stuff out. People

always

> > > say go to a star party and see what other folks are doing. Well I'm

> > > the guy that people go to see. In my local club there aren't any

> > > vanguard elements so that I can hang back. I just ordered a Zeiss

> > > 16.7mm 2" eyepiece that no one has heard of. No one. Only report

> > > I've got is someone who knew someone who said.... Bought a Televue

> > > dioptrx not because I was confident I'd be able to use it on my

> > > Pentaxes, but because I'd fiddle with it and see if I could find a

> > > way. Sail forth, bold Floyd, into the ocean blue!

> > >

> > > The amount of money I blew on the Zeiss is less than the

Ovision, but

> > > not that much less. OTOH I expect the funds to be 50 - 75%

> > > recoverable if I don't want it. It is after all a zeiss eyepiece.

> > >

> > > regards

> > > Greg N

> > >

> > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hey, I am not saying the worm block doesn't work or is too

> tight. I am

> > > > just saying that being tight and rough to turn just doesn't seem

> > > > right. I just don't understand how the roughness would not be

> > > > transmitted into the system. But, I am willing to ge convinced and

> > > > perhaps to bu one.

> > > > Floyd

> > > >

> > >

> >

>



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

#38854 Aug 13, 2008

At the level of work you do Rainer, Roland would be very forthcoming.

He does not consider the AP worm a closely guarded secret and would

probably be interested in seeing some pics of your own designs.



regards

Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Rainer" rsbfoto@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Mark,

>

> Got it, but what makes me wonder is the usage of the words ...

>

> ... believe ... and ... seem ...

>

> So you are not sure, right ? but I am sure because i went thru all of

> it allready ... :-)

>

> Anyhow, there are many different designs, but honestly I have never

> seen deep into an AP worm or a Takahashi worm or a Paramount worm or

> whatever other good ecuatorial mount assembly so I can not assure how

> they are built ...

>

> If you ahd a chance to have a look into it that is good and so you

> know more about it then me :-)

>

> That is all I can say and I will not comment on this anymore :-) It is

> just a waste of time for me as I am very busy building my new

> observatory :-)

>

> rainerehlert.com/ObsReal14/cons/Pano-Obser-02.jpg

>

> Have a nice time and good luck ...

>

> regards Rainer

>

>

> >

> > Rainer

> >

> > As I have stated before, I personally do not believe that axial

> bearings are

> > required nor necessarily desirable in this application as the deep

> groove

> > ball races require a degree of pre-load to keep them running true. The

> > results from the OVision block and my preliminary results with

> Martins block

> > would seem to bear this out. There are also some other fine (more

> expensive)

> > mounts out there that only use deep groove radial ball race

bearings on

> > their worms too.

> >

> > Regards

> > Mark

> >

> > 2008/8/13 Rainer rsbfoto@>

> >

> > > Hi Greg,

> > >

> > > > Rainer

> > > > has his own design and is not on board for any of the

alternatives,

> > >

> > > I have been reading this and it has been proven (astrokattner did

> > > exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with radial ball

> > > bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you press

> > > them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but

still

> > > some problems.

> > >

> > > I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

> > > integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS enough

> > > space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

> > >

> > > Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design and I

> > > told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> > > integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

> > >

> > > Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end of the

> > > wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible balls

> > > makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball axial

> > > bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really do not

> > > need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis

running

> > > smoothly.

> > >

> > > I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago and the

> > > price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm

included but

> > > with 2 axial bearings.

> > >

> > > The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass worm. I

> > > immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

> > >

> > > regards Rainer

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

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

> >

>







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

#38856 Aug 13, 2008

No one can answer that for you Floyd. I think the main thing is

whether you are suffering from the 76 arc second problem. If it has

bugged you, you might want to do something about it.



There's also the question of whether you ever envision imaging at

longer fls and if so, whether you'd want to do it on a Losmandy.



I'm very bullish on the G11 and G8s right now. The innovations on the

market and in the pipeline are terrific, it's a mount with a large

user base, a supportive group, it can be run on dscs or analog setting

circles or go-to paddle or laptop pc, I can't think of another mount

that can do ALL of those things. The Berlebach tripod series is a

wicked fine alternative tripod system for those who want to go with

wood instead of the already excellent default tripod--which has been

one of the best in the industry on a consistent basis.



Sometimes when the mood strikes I drop money on marginal gains. I

just did that when I ordered the Zeiss 16.7. I already have a Nagler

17 T4. How much better could the Zeiss be? It will be a case of an

incremental gain or maybe just tradeoffs. Maybe the Zeiss 16.7 won't

be any better at all!



You know the story. It's part of being an equipment hound. As far as

all that goes, I'm sort of in-between. All you have to do is look at

those Astromart guys with 200+ transactions. I'm still down in the

60s. But I do try things for the heck of it.



regards

Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@...> wrote:

>

> Yup! Plus I am reviewing the data from the last tests I did on my

> mount and comparing it to the data that is now available. My worm and

> all right now looks pretty good. But, maybe the Ovision would have

> some improvement?

> Floyd

> ---



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

#38857 Aug 13, 2008

Sounds like you have to use the Ovision as it comes, no mods. That is

OK, as long as it works well.

Here is my log from the last test. It shows 2 worm cycles, guiding

off, logging on and just polar aligned.



tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/view/72cf?b=9&m=f&o=0



You can see that it is not so far from that of the Ovision and the

reason for my hesitant behavior. :^_

Floyd --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote:

>

> Floyd I think you should write to Franck and ask him. He's very

> forthcoming. Share the answer with us. Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Rainer,

> > You have brought up the same concern as I did, why is the Ovision set

> > up so tight as to be rough and stiff? Just can not figure out why this

> > would be a good thing.

> > I would have to agree that the axial ball bearing sound like a better

> > idea. So, you think that a person could insert a set of bearings in

> > the Ovision without modification?

> > Floyd

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Rainer" rsbfoto@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi Greg,

> > >

> > >

> > > > Rainer

> > > > has his own design and is not on board for any of the

alternatives,

> > >

> > > I have been reading this and it has been proven (astrokattner did

> > > exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with radial ball

> > > bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you press

> > > them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but

still

> > > some problems.

> > >

> > > I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

> > > integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS enough

> > > space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

> > >

> > > Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design and I

> > > told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> > > integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

> > >

> > > Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end of the

> > > wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible balls

> > > makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball axial

> > > bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really do not

> > > need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis

running

> > > smoothly.

> > >

> > > I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago and the

> > > price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm

included but

> > > with 2 axial bearings.

> > >

> > > The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass worm. I

> > > immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

> > >

> > > regards Rainer

> > >

> >

>



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

#38858 Aug 13, 2008

I have other logs that are perhaps better, but I thought this was a

better average log.

Floyd --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@...> wrote:

>

> Sounds like you have to use the Ovision as it comes, no mods. That is

> OK, as long as it works well.

> Here is my log from the last test. It shows 2 worm cycles, guiding

> off, logging on and just polar aligned.

>

>

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/view/72cf?b=9&m=f&o=0

>

> You can see that it is not so far from that of the Ovision and the

> reason for my hesitant behavior. :^_

> Floyd

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@> wrote:

> >

> > Floyd I think you should write to Franck and ask him. He's very

> > forthcoming. Share the answer with us. Greg N

> >

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi Rainer,

> > > You have brought up the same concern as I did, why is the

Ovision set

> > > up so tight as to be rough and stiff? Just can not figure out

why this

> > > would be a good thing.

> > > I would have to agree that the axial ball bearing sound like a

better

> > > idea. So, you think that a person could insert a set of bearings in

> > > the Ovision without modification?

> > > Floyd

> > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Rainer" rsbfoto@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hi Greg,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Rainer

> > > > > has his own design and is not on board for any of the

> alternatives,

> > > >

> > > > I have been reading this and it has been proven (astrokattner did

> > > > exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with radial ball

> > > > bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you

press

> > > > them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but

> still

> > > > some problems.

> > > >

> > > > I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

> > > > integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS

enough

> > > > space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

> > > >

> > > > Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design and I

> > > > told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> > > > integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

> > > >

> > > > Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end

of the

> > > > wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible

balls

> > > > makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball axial

> > > > bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really

do not

> > > > need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis

> running

> > > > smoothly.

> > > >

> > > > I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago and the

> > > > price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm

> included but

> > > > with 2 axial bearings.

> > > >

> > > > The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass worm. I

> > > > immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

> > > >

> > > > regards Rainer

> > > >

> > >

> >

>







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

#38859 Aug 13, 2008

Hi Greg,



As far I know there has never been a Precise Parts worm. I assume that

was sort of misunderstanding of one of my very early postings.



Ashley made a total of 5 pieces of the RS-Wormblock and that was my

desgin. Ashley Stevens gave me some technical assistance in regard tot

he tolerances he as able to machine as well as we discussed about ball

bearings radial and axial and some minor changes so he could machine

my design.



regards Rainer



>

> What was the Precise Parts design? anyone know? How many were sold?

>

> I heard it was a "floating worm" but I'm now not so sure what that

> means. I used to think it meant spring loaded in such a way that

> spring pressure was needed to make contact with the mount.

>

> regards

> Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Rainer" rsbfoto@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Greg,

> >

> > I just checked an image send by the builder of the first RS-Wormblock.

> > It is dated May 3rd 2005 :-)

> >

> > rainerehlert.com/astro/worm/PPWB02.jpg

> >

> > Already more then 3 Years ago :-))

> >

> > regards Rainer

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Hi Greg,

> > >

> > >

> > > > Rainer

> > > > has his own design and is not on board for any of the

alternatives, > > >

> > > I have been reading this and it has been proven (astrokattner did

> > > exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with radial ball

> > > bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you press

> > > them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but

still > > > some problems.

> > >

> > > I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

> > > integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS enough

> > > space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

> > >

> > > Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design and I

> > > told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> > > integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

> > >

> > > Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end of the

> > > wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible balls

> > > makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball axial

> > > bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really do not

> > > need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis

running > > > smoothly.

> > >

> > > I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago and the

> > > price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm

included but > > > with 2 axial bearings.

> > >

> > > The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass worm. I

> > > immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

> > >

> > > regards Rainer

> > >

> >

>



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

#38861 Aug 13, 2008

Hi Greg,

> > I heard it was a "floating worm" but I'm now not so sure what that

> > means. I used to think it meant spring loaded in such a way that

> > spring pressure was needed to make contact with the mount.



The floating worm is the RS-Wormblock and that means that a spring is

pushing the whole assembly on the right side onto the gear and the

whole block is held down by 2 springs. That is all.



Here you can see a few images



The right side and the left dide (motor) is held down by a spring at

each position



rainerehlert.com/astro/worm/WBSL01.jpg



Here a close up from the right side (far side from the motor) as well

as you can see the screw which adjusts the tension of the axial

bearings against the inner ring of the radial ball berings. The outer

ing of the radial ball bearings posirion themselves into a centered

position so the ball are running in the center of their correct race.



The next image shows you the spring which pushes the whole assembly

against the gear.



rainerehlert.com/astro/worm/WBSL03.jpg



OK, now all secrets of the RS-Wormblocks are disclosed. I would have

been happy if Ashley Stevens could have made me a one piece block but

he told me that time that he was not able to make such a long

perfectly centered bore on his lathe or watever machine he uses. That

is why I had to make a traverse in order to fix the position of both

blocks.



regards Rainer



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

#38862 Aug 13, 2008

Here is the close up of the right side



rainerehlert.com/astro/worm/WBSL02.jpg

>

> Hi Greg,

>

> > > I heard it was a "floating worm" but I'm now not so sure what that

> > > means. I used to think it meant spring loaded in such a way that

> > > spring pressure was needed to make contact with the mount.

>

> The floating worm is the RS-Wormblock and that means that a spring is

> pushing the whole assembly on the right side onto the gear and the

> whole block is held down by 2 springs. That is all.

>

> Here you can see a few images

>

> The right side and the left dide (motor) is held down by a spring at

> each position

>

> rainerehlert.com/astro/worm/WBSL01.jpg

>

> Here a close up from the right side (far side from the motor) as well

> as you can see the screw which adjusts the tension of the axial

> bearings against the inner ring of the radial ball berings. The outer

> ing of the radial ball bearings posirion themselves into a centered

> position so the ball are running in the center of their correct race.

>

> The next image shows you the spring which pushes the whole assembly

> against the gear.

>

> rainerehlert.com/astro/worm/WBSL03.jpg

>

> OK, now all secrets of the RS-Wormblocks are disclosed. I would have

> been happy if Ashley Stevens could have made me a one piece block but

> he told me that time that he was not able to make such a long

> perfectly centered bore on his lathe or watever machine he uses. That

> is why I had to make a traverse in order to fix the position of both

> blocks.

>

> regards Rainer

>







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

#38865 Aug 13, 2008

Well at least I was clear that it was not currently available! Thanks

for posting the pics. Very interesting work. I'm afraid I haven't

your talents....



regards

Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Rainer" rsbfoto@...> wrote:

>

> Hi Greg,

>

> As far I know there has never been a Precise Parts worm. I assume that

> was sort of misunderstanding of one of my very early postings.

>

>



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

#38870 Aug 13, 2008

I think that this message just went up before I could type it in.

This is the intended message.



Well people here can comment on what they see in those graphs. I'm

not comfortable rendering judgment. I do see some spikey things that

look like they might not be smooth enough to guide out but I can't

answer if they matter.



So my response is (a) imagers here can answer better than me--they

know what is guide-able and what is not and (b) I bet you Franck will

give you an intelligent response if he sees your results. Send him a

note with the PE to ovision-at-aol.com.



Again it comes down to what your goals are. If you're imaging in a 5"

f/6 you may not need as much as in a 9.25" f/10.



I have a feeling he's not going to oversell you. I don't think this

is a huge moneymaker for him even though others think it's overpriced.

I think he does best on volume sales of stuff that doesn't need

individual certification.



If perchance you did get an Ovision and decided not to keep it I

suspect you could get a healthy chunk of money back on the mart. I'd

guess $300 to $400. So you don't have the whole chunk of change at

risk. You'll get an excel file with a printout and you can put up a

jpeg of that. I think it would sell. But your results look "better

than the average bear."



regards

Greg N



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@...> wrote:

>

> I have other logs that are perhaps better, but I thought this was a

> better average log.

> Floyd

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> >

> > Sounds like you have to use the Ovision as it comes, no mods. That is

> > OK, as long as it works well.

> > Here is my log from the last test. It shows 2 worm cycles, guiding

> > off, logging on and just polar aligned.

> >

> >

>

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/view/72cf?b=9&m=f&o=0

> >

> > You can see that it is not so far from that of the Ovision and the

> > reason for my hesitant behavior. :^_

> > Floyd

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Floyd I think you should write to Franck and ask him. He's very

> > > forthcoming. Share the answer with us. Greg N

> > >

> > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hi Rainer,

> > > > You have brought up the same concern as I did, why is the

> Ovision set

> > > > up so tight as to be rough and stiff? Just can not figure out

> why this

> > > > would be a good thing.

> > > > I would have to agree that the axial ball bearing sound like a

> better

> > > > idea. So, you think that a person could insert a set of

bearings in

> > > > the Ovision without modification?

> > > > Floyd

> > > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Rainer" rsbfoto@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi Greg,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Rainer

> > > > > > has his own design and is not on board for any of the

> > alternatives,

> > > > >

> > > > > I have been reading this and it has been proven

(astrokattner did

> > > > > exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with

radial ball

> > > > > bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you

> press

> > > > > them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball bearings but

> > still

> > > > > some problems.

> > > > >

> > > > > I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks do not

> > > > > integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS

> enough

> > > > > space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design

and I

> > > > > told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> > > > > integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

> > > > >

> > > > > Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end

> of the

> > > > > wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible

> balls

> > > > > makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball

axial

> > > > > bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really

> do not

> > > > > need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis

> > running

> > > > > smoothly.

> > > > >

> > > > > I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago

and the

> > > > > price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm

> > included but

> > > > > with 2 axial bearings.

> > > > >

> > > > > The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass

worm. I

> > > > > immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

> > > > >

> > > > > regards Rainer

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>







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

#38871 Aug 13, 2008

Floyd,

The log you show has the 76er. The steep dip does not occur at 240sec

intervals, I bet it is the 76er convoluted with the fundamental and

perhaps other harmonics. The PEAS FFT result doesn't look right since

the max frequency occurs at ~170sec and the next biggest at 85sec.

There is usually no strong components (wrt the fundamental) at those

locations. Your tracking would definitely improve with the Ovision

kit, however if your imager focal length is such that the autoguider

can handle 6" swing, no worries... For long focal length imaging the

sudden 2" jumps would be your worst problem. I'm not sure where they

are coming from, I've seen that kind of thing in DEC, but very rarely

in RA.



EB



--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote:

>

> I think that this message just went up before I could type it in.

> This is the intended message.

>

> Well people here can comment on what they see in those graphs. I'm

> not comfortable rendering judgment. I do see some spikey things that

> look like they might not be smooth enough to guide out but I can't

> answer if they matter.

>

> So my response is (a) imagers here can answer better than me--they

> know what is guide-able and what is not and (b) I bet you Franck will

> give you an intelligent response if he sees your results. Send him a

> note with the PE to ovision-at-aol.com.

>

> Again it comes down to what your goals are. If you're imaging in a 5"

> f/6 you may not need as much as in a 9.25" f/10.

>

> I have a feeling he's not going to oversell you. I don't think this

> is a huge moneymaker for him even though others think it's overpriced.

> I think he does best on volume sales of stuff that doesn't need

> individual certification.

>

> If perchance you did get an Ovision and decided not to keep it I

> suspect you could get a healthy chunk of money back on the mart. I'd

> guess $300 to $400. So you don't have the whole chunk of change at

> risk. You'll get an excel file with a printout and you can put up a

> jpeg of that. I think it would sell. But your results look "better

> than the average bear."

>

> regards

> Greg N

>

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> >

> > I have other logs that are perhaps better, but I thought this was a

> > better average log.

> > Floyd

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Sounds like you have to use the Ovision as it comes, no mods.

That is

> > > OK, as long as it works well.

> > > Here is my log from the last test. It shows 2 worm cycles, guiding

> > > off, logging on and just polar aligned.

> > >

> > >

> >

>

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/view/72cf?b=9&m=f&o=0

> > >

> > > You can see that it is not so far from that of the Ovision and the

> > > reason for my hesitant behavior. :^_

> > > Floyd



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

#38872 Aug 13, 2008

Can I take my credit card statement down now? I don't want to leave

it up indefinitely, even if I did cover up the numbers.



Greg N

--- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Benson" ebenson@...> wrote:

>

> Floyd,

> The log you show has the 76er. The steep dip does not occur at



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

#38877 Aug 13, 2008

Hi Greg,

Yes, there are some spikes that I would rather not see. But, as I

said, I have others that are quite flat comparatively, but I did not

post them because they almost look too good.

The one thing that I have noticed when trying to get a log like this

is that focus and conditions play a part in how the graph looks,

because the software reports what the camera posts which includes seeing.

I think you are right about the resale though, it would probably sell

for $350-450 on Amart, it is not something that you would see

everyday, kind of like a Zambuto mirror for sale. If you are in the

market and it is discounted, then you would probably buy it.

Floyd --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote:

>

> I think that this message just went up before I could type it in.

> This is the intended message.

>

> Well people here can comment on what they see in those graphs. I'm

> not comfortable rendering judgment. I do see some spikey things that

> look like they might not be smooth enough to guide out but I can't

> answer if they matter.

>

> So my response is (a) imagers here can answer better than me--they

> know what is guide-able and what is not and (b) I bet you Franck will

> give you an intelligent response if he sees your results. Send him a

> note with the PE to ovision-at-aol.com.

>

> Again it comes down to what your goals are. If you're imaging in a 5"

> f/6 you may not need as much as in a 9.25" f/10.

>

> I have a feeling he's not going to oversell you. I don't think this

> is a huge moneymaker for him even though others think it's overpriced.

> I think he does best on volume sales of stuff that doesn't need

> individual certification.

>

> If perchance you did get an Ovision and decided not to keep it I

> suspect you could get a healthy chunk of money back on the mart. I'd

> guess $300 to $400. So you don't have the whole chunk of change at

> risk. You'll get an excel file with a printout and you can put up a

> jpeg of that. I think it would sell. But your results look "better

> than the average bear."

>

> regards

> Greg N

>

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> >

> > I have other logs that are perhaps better, but I thought this was a

> > better average log.

> > Floyd

> > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Sounds like you have to use the Ovision as it comes, no mods.

That is

> > > OK, as long as it works well.

> > > Here is my log from the last test. It shows 2 worm cycles, guiding

> > > off, logging on and just polar aligned.

> > >

> > >

> >

>

tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Losmandy_users/photos/view/72cf?b=9&m=f&o=0

> > >

> > > You can see that it is not so far from that of the Ovision and the

> > > reason for my hesitant behavior. :^_

> > > Floyd

> > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Floyd I think you should write to Franck and ask him. He's very

> > > > forthcoming. Share the answer with us. Greg N

> > > >

> > > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Floyd Blue" fblue@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Hi Rainer,

> > > > > You have brought up the same concern as I did, why is the

> > Ovision set

> > > > > up so tight as to be rough and stiff? Just can not figure out

> > why this

> > > > > would be a good thing.

> > > > > I would have to agree that the axial ball bearing sound like a

> > better

> > > > > idea. So, you think that a person could insert a set of

> bearings in

> > > > > the Ovision without modification?

> > > > > Floyd

> > > > > --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Rainer" rsbfoto@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Hi Greg,

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Rainer

> > > > > > > has his own design and is not on board for any of the

> > > alternatives,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I have been reading this and it has been proven

> (astrokattner did

> > > > > > exhaustive test in this regard) that working only with

> radial ball

> > > > > > bearings alone is a risk (76second error)and specially if you

> > press

> > > > > > them together to tight. OK, there are angular ball

bearings but

> > > still

> > > > > > some problems.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I really wonder why the builders of the one piece blocks

do not

> > > > > > integrate some axial ball bearings into the design. THERE IS

> > enough

> > > > > > space to put 2 axial ball bearings into it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Both asked me a while ago what do I think about their design

> and I

> > > > > > told to both that is is very good but they should consider to

> > > > > > integrate an axial bearing ... They did not :-)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Both already do have the adjustng possibility on the rear end

> > of the

> > > > > > wormblock. Using a good axial bearing with as much as possible

> > balls

> > > > > > makes it better. I just changed from an 8 ball to a 10 ball

> axial

> > > > > > bearing and it improved the running smothness and you really

> > do not

> > > > > > need to apply high presuure just enough so you feel the wormis

> > > running

> > > > > > smoothly.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I presented the RS-Wormblock I guess more then 2 years ago

> and the

> > > > > > price was the same as they are selling it now, OK no worm

> > > included but

> > > > > > with 2 axial bearings.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The first good step from Scott Losmandy is to use a brass

> worm. I

> > > > > > immediately saw a change after using one in one of my mounts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards Rainer

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>







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

#38879 Aug 13, 2008

Absolutely Greg!

Floyd --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "gnowellsct" tim71pos@...> wrote:

>

> Can I take my credit card statement down now? I don't want to leave

> it up indefinitely, even if I did cover up the numbers.

>

> Greg N

>

> --- In Losmandy_users@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Benson" ebenson@> wrote:

> >

> > Floyd,

> > The log you show has the 76er. The steep dip does not occur at

>



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

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