VintageBigBlue.org

 

Re: [Losmandy_users] Re: PE: the saga continues


Nov 15, 2000

 


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

#1003 Nov 15, 2000

I thought about what you said below, and realized that I did in fact have the mount

under (some) load when I tried my multi-worm swap test. I had a 4" refractor (C102, my

guidescope) on the mount, along with my counterweights.



If the mount must be fully loaded with the anticipated equipment (in my case, C9.25

with CCD camera, guidescope with autoguider, side-by-side saddle), then this would seem

to indicate an intolerable situation: the mount would have different amounts of PE

depending on what equipment you've got on it. I'm not willing to re-adjust the worm

everytime I use different equipment on the mount. Is this what I would have to do, to

ensure best possible tracking? Or does it just have to be under some amount of load

when you initially adjust the worm pressure? Please tell me it's the latter and not the

former!



Paul Sterngold



--- "David A. Silva" dasilva@...> wrote: > Paul

>

> On my GM8 I initially adjusted the worm with no load on the mount, next

> time I was out with the rig the adjustment proved horrible. Readjusting

> in the field with the normal load made a big difference. I know this

> isn't the "normal" situation, but it is what worked for me. Just

> another data point...

>

> -David



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

Do You Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays!

calendar.yahoo.com/



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

#1006 Nov 15, 2000

Paul:

It's been the general concensus of APML that it's best to adjust

the worm/gear under full load, as you would use it. I would do a

trial adjustment with one load, test the tracking, swap to the other

load, test again, adjust again, and see what difference if any.



Regards,

Bruce Inscoe



Is this what I

would have to do, to > ensure best possible tracking? Or does it just have to be under some

amount of load > when you initially adjust the worm pressure? Please tell me it's the

latter and not the > former!

>

> Paul Sterngold

>



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

#1013 Nov 16, 2000

On 16 Nov 2000 14:17:48 -0000, Paul Sterngold wrote:

>If the mount must be fully loaded with the anticipated equipment (in my case, C9.25

>with CCD camera, guidescope with autoguider, side-by-side saddle), then this would seem

>to indicate an intolerable situation: the mount would have different amounts of PE

>depending on what equipment you've got on it. I'm not willing to re-adjust the worm

>everytime I use different equipment on the mount. Is this what I would have to do, to

>ensure best possible tracking? Or does it just have to be under some amount of load

>when you initially adjust the worm pressure? Please tell me it's the latter and not the

>former!



Ok, it's the latter(g). Seriously!



My problem: adjusting it unloaded so I could just spin the worm freely

by hand, then with a load it was way to tight. I tried setting it

looser by hand on the unloaded mount and then loaded it was too loose -

darn, why couldn't I have micro-stepping fingers(g). With the mount

loaded a hard press fit and then backing off a tad did the trick.



Adjusting with the counterweights and the C102 should be plenty of

load.



-David



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

#1019 Nov 16, 2000

it should not matter how much load is on the mount to test the worm if it is

balanced,Only clutch affects it.If it is loaded and clutched and the motor

is disconnected then the worm will still spin freely in the direction of the

counterweight pull.(otherwise,while the worm mating may be proper ie free

turning,the lateral force exerted by the counterweights makes turning the

worm by hand like pushing the scope up hill)



jimmy



>From: "David A. Silva" dasilva@...>

>Reply-To: Losmandy_users@egroups.com

>To: "Losmandy_users@egroups.com" Losmandy_users@egroups.com>

>Subject: [Losmandy_users] Re: PE: the saga continues

>Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 07:48:25 -0800

>

>On 16 Nov 2000 14:17:48 -0000, Paul Sterngold wrote:

>

> >If the mount must be fully loaded with the anticipated equipment (in my

>case, C9.25

> >with CCD camera, guidescope with autoguider, side-by-side saddle), then

>this would seem

> >to indicate an intolerable situation: the mount would have different

>amounts of PE

> >depending on what equipment you've got on it. I'm not willing to

>re-adjust the worm

> >everytime I use different equipment on the mount. Is this what I would

>have to do, to

> >ensure best possible tracking? Or does it just have to be under some

>amount of load

> >when you initially adjust the worm pressure? Please tell me it's the

>latter and not the

> >former!

>

>Ok, it's the latter(g). Seriously!

>

>My problem: adjusting it unloaded so I could just spin the worm freely

>by hand, then with a load it was way to tight. I tried setting it

>looser by hand on the unloaded mount and then loaded it was too loose -

>darn, why couldn't I have micro-stepping fingers(g). With the mount

>loaded a hard press fit and then backing off a tad did the trick.

>

>Adjusting with the counterweights and the C102 should be plenty of

>load.

>

>-David

>

>

>

>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

>Losmandy_users-unsubscribe@egroups.com

>

>

>



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

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at www.hotmail.com



Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

profiles.msn.com







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

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