Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: A Solution
Thanks Chuck. That make perfect sense. Debbie
From: Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> Date: 2004/10/26 Tue AM 11:52:36 MDT To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: A Solution
Hi Debbie:
--- astrodeb@charter.net wrote:
That is why I got a GEM mount. It is much easier to balance. I have one question for Chuck. When you say the gears should be working uphill, do you mean towards the telescope side or towards the counterweight side?
If you can't achieve precise balance:
Telescope side should be slightly heavy when looking west of the meridian, counterweight side when looking east of the meridian. The load should always be against the direction of rotation. When the telescope isn't "working" against the gears, it's acting as a governor, not a drive, and it was not designed to do this. The result can be erratic tracking if the mount is loaded to near it's limit or was designed poorly from the outset.
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
You're quite welcome, Debbie. Remember that this is just a guideline, not all mounts are in the "marginal" zone. Older mounts with synchronous motors tend to reap the greatest obvious benefit from the technique. Modern stepper motors can sometimes deal with higher loads associated with an out-of-balance condition without tracking errors, right up until they fail outright and prematurely. No warning signs. Tracking with fork mounts will benefit from proper "uphill" loading also, but really precise balance should always be sought. --- astrodeb@charter.net wrote:
Thanks Chuck. That make perfect sense.
Debbie
From: Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> Date: 2004/10/26 Tue AM 11:52:36 MDT To: Utah Astronomy
<utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Re: A Solution
Hi Debbie:
--- astrodeb@charter.net wrote:
That is why I got a GEM mount. It is much easier to balance. I have one question for Chuck. When you say the gears should be working uphill, do you mean towards the telescope side or towards the counterweight side?
If you can't achieve precise balance:
Telescope side should be slightly heavy when looking west of the meridian, counterweight side when looking east of the meridian. The load should always be against the direction of rotation. When the telescope isn't "working" against the gears, it's acting as a governor, not a drive, and it was not designed to do this. The result can be erratic tracking if the mount is loaded to near it's limit or was designed poorly from the outset.
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
participants (2)
-
astrodeb＠charter.net -
Chuck Hards