开云体育

On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 06:13 AM, BBasiaga wrote:

Are you building a model first???

I would think the side-by side would make a huge difference, as it introduces a HUGE cone error (optical axis not in line with the mechanical axis).? ? If I'm thinking of the wrong 'side by side' or there is a way to correct the cone error mechanically (I can't visualize how that would work) then ignore me.?

-Brian

For an equatorial mount you can visualize cone error by looking at the mount from either the west or east side of the mount. An EQ mount with no cone error will have the telescope optical axis perpendicular (90 degrees) to the DEC axis. If there is any deviation from this the telescope's optical axis will travel along a different arc than the arc traveled by the mount RA axis. This is what is called cone error.?

I routinely load the G11G with a Losmandy side-by-side dovetail with a pair of matching Losmandy 8" single clamp saddles. I use an ADM MAX Guider ALT/AZ aiming device in the right saddle to align both OTAs perfectly. In the left saddle I usually have the bespoke Parallax/AT130mm f/6 SDT with the usual full ZWO ASIAIR imaging system or occasionally a M10" LX200 f/6.3 SCT with the same imaging rig. In the right saddle I usually have a scope setup for visual use, usually the Takahashi FC-100DL, Takahashi FS-60Q or M8" LX200 f/10 ACF SCT. I've never seen any cone error that I can detect if they are correctly aligned.??
? ?
A side-by-side mount that is well made should not introduce any cone error if made correctly and is stiff enough to resist the bending forces placed on it as the mount moves the payload throughout its travel.?
??

--

Chip Louie Chief Daydreamer Imagination Hardware?

? ?Astrospheric Weather Forecast - South Pasadena, CA?