开云体育

Hi Edward,

Scott may confirm, but my supplier here in the UK tells me October
for first shipments.

CS,
Ian.

--- In Losmandy_users@..., "Tam Kam Fai" <98900945r@p...>
wrote:

Boys! Take a look at this page:


It looks lovely (at a price. :p)
When will it be available?

Edward Tam

Secondary system question please: already own a DM10 plate for the
G-11, but would like to use it for double duty with 6" A-P rings.
Other than the whole pattern, is the DM10 identical to the DAP6 for
thickness & strength? Thanks - Otto

Boys! Take a look at this page:


It looks lovely (at a price. :p)
When will it be available?

Edward Tam

I've recently ordered an Intes MK66 Mak-Cass scope and hope to mount it on a
GM-8 mount. I've been told that the universal dovetail plate doesn't match
up to the MK66 and has to have minor modifications in order to work.

Does anyone know if this is still an issue, or has the problem been
corrected? I'd hate to spend that much money on a mount and still have to
attack it with a drill to get it all together! ;-)


Thanks, and Clear Skies!

Carl

Hi Karl,

It's good to hear from another GM100 owner. How do you find the tracking
accuracy of your mount? Any tricks that have improved it? Any tricks to
improve (remove slop from) the DEC tangent arm?

Paul Sterngold

--- Karl Moll <karlmoll@...> wrote:

I also have the GM100 and ST-4 and do not use the PEC. It seems to
work fine without it.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.

I thought someone would pick up on that; and if I remember correctly
someone posted that they thought that Scott was not too impressed
about the teflon fix in general.

I wonder if he has since found out there is a long term problem with
the fix since he first recommended it himself.

--- In Losmandy_users@..., "Bill Faatz" <faatz1@l...> wrote:

There are a couple of things you should know about the GM8 mounts

in

general, and the G9 in particular. My G9 shared a "stiction"

problem with

the GM8s, particularly in DEC. A replacement teflon bushing from

Scott

Losmandy resolved this problem, although it introduced a minor

issue: the

DEC clutch must be tightened more to achieve the same amount of

resistance.

IMO, that's a minor irritation, compared to the stiction problem,

which was

a HUGE pain-in-the-***!

Gee, this sounds familiar....so Scott has already had this fix in
his bag of tricks for the G9. When I emailed him about replacing

the

nylon clutch washer with teflon on my G11, I got the impression

from

his response that it was a new idea. Nothing was said about the

fact

that he already did this on the G9. Hmmmm...curiouser and

curiouser.

Bill

I also have the GM100 and ST-4 and do not use the PEC. It seems to
work fine without it.

--- In Losmandy_users@..., Paul Sterngold <psterngold@y...>
wrote:

Years ago, I was a subscriber to the APML list. Most folks there

suggested

that I leave PEC turned off when autoguiding- let the autoguider

take care

of all corrections. That's how I currently use my GM100 mount and

ST4.

Paul Sterngold

--- Julie and Tom Carrico <carrico@p...> wrote:

Hi Greg,
I do not use the King tracking rate. My impression was it works

for

low to the horizon shots. Since I do not have a complete

understanding

of it, I have never tried it.
I have not tried the PEC, but I am thinking about giving it a

try to

see if it provides any help. I am a little bothered by the fact

that I

would have to retrain it every time I use it, but if it works, it
would be worth it.

Tom C



Greg Crawford wrote:

Tom,

After another night fine tuning my G11 I still have not

achieved your

guiding error rate.

So I'll keep trying. :-)

Two more questions: Do you use the King tracking rate? Do you

find that

the

PEC helps?

Greg Crawford

-----Original Message-----
From: Julie and Tom Carrico [mailto:carrico@p...]
Sent: Saturday, 5 August 2000 12:53 AM
To: Losmandy_users@...
Subject: Re: [Losmandy_users] Recent 4" Tak Images from last
weekend at
ARGO


Greg,
The delay after correction (usually about .8 seconds) is

absolutely

required. Until I did that, my corrections were always in

the .5 to 1

pixel range. The mount was still responding to the prior move

when

the

next guiding exposure was started.
If I use a tracking rate of more than 2 seconds, and there is

a

change

in RA and DEC (my minimum move times are usually .2 to .25

seconds),

then it can be up to 2+.2+.2+.8+.8 = 4 seconds between

corrections.

This now starts to get kind of long. I have noticed that the

way my

drive works is that it hums along pretty well, and then has a

jump of

.7 or so pixels that is usually guided out on the next

correction. If

I wait too long between corrections, it will be too long

before the

error is guided out.
I am still working with the drive. Since it is brand new, I

have not

yet taken it all apart for a cleaning as recommended by so

many other

G-11 motors. For the most part, I am very satisfied. The DSC

are just

great and the mount is well built.

Tom C

Greg Crawford wrote:

Tom,

+/- .2 pixels is excellent. Would you have obtained the

same level of

guiding accuracy ifyou had exposed the tracking CCD for

say, 2 secs, without

any delay?

Greg Crawford



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Losmandy_users-unsubscribe@...

--------------------------------------------------------------
------<e|-
Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!
Click Here!

--------------------------------------------------------------
------|e>-

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Losmandy_users-unsubscribe@...

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Losmandy_users-unsubscribe@...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.

--- In Losmandy_users@..., "Bill Faatz" <faatz1@l...> wrote:

Signing off for 10 days ...going to look at some property near

Bishop

Cal for my 30inch observatory site...OK, actually looking at
retirement
property, but with the 30 inch in mind.

Clear skies
Bill

Where near Bishop? My club will be going to Grandview campground in
the White Mountains later this month.

Years ago, I was a subscriber to the APML list. Most folks there suggested
that I leave PEC turned off when autoguiding- let the autoguider take care
of all corrections. That's how I currently use my GM100 mount and ST4.

Paul Sterngold

--- Julie and Tom Carrico <carrico@...> wrote:

Hi Greg,
I do not use the King tracking rate. My impression was it works for
low to the horizon shots. Since I do not have a complete understanding
of it, I have never tried it.
I have not tried the PEC, but I am thinking about giving it a try to
see if it provides any help. I am a little bothered by the fact that I
would have to retrain it every time I use it, but if it works, it
would be worth it.

Tom C



Greg Crawford wrote:

Tom,

After another night fine tuning my G11 I still have not achieved your
guiding error rate.

So I'll keep trying. :-)

Two more questions: Do you use the King tracking rate? Do you find that

the

PEC helps?

Greg Crawford

-----Original Message-----
From: Julie and Tom Carrico [mailto:carrico@...]
Sent: Saturday, 5 August 2000 12:53 AM
To: Losmandy_users@...
Subject: Re: [Losmandy_users] Recent 4" Tak Images from last
weekend at
ARGO


Greg,
The delay after correction (usually about .8 seconds) is absolutely
required. Until I did that, my corrections were always in the .5 to 1
pixel range. The mount was still responding to the prior move when

the

next guiding exposure was started.
If I use a tracking rate of more than 2 seconds, and there is a

change

in RA and DEC (my minimum move times are usually .2 to .25 seconds),
then it can be up to 2+.2+.2+.8+.8 = 4 seconds between corrections.
This now starts to get kind of long. I have noticed that the way my
drive works is that it hums along pretty well, and then has a jump of
.7 or so pixels that is usually guided out on the next correction. If
I wait too long between corrections, it will be too long before the
error is guided out.
I am still working with the drive. Since it is brand new, I have not
yet taken it all apart for a cleaning as recommended by so many other
G-11 motors. For the most part, I am very satisfied. The DSC are just
great and the mount is well built.

Tom C

Greg Crawford wrote:

Tom,

+/- .2 pixels is excellent. Would you have obtained the

same level of

guiding accuracy ifyou had exposed the tracking CCD for

say, 2 secs, without

any delay?

Greg Crawford



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Losmandy_users-unsubscribe@...

--------------------------------------------------------------
------<e|-
Free Conference Calling with Firetalk!
Click Here!

--------------------------------------------------------------
------|e>-

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Losmandy_users-unsubscribe@...

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Losmandy_users-unsubscribe@...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.

Milton,

I think it's 3.5" OD by 1.25" ID and .031 thick. Not quite sure about OD but it did measure it and
that's what I remember.

Don

Hi Greg,
I do not use the King tracking rate. My impression was it works for
low to the horizon shots. Since I do not have a complete understanding
of it, I have never tried it.
I have not tried the PEC, but I am thinking about giving it a try to
see if it provides any help. I am a little bothered by the fact that I
would have to retrain it every time I use it, but if it works, it
would be worth it.

Tom C



Greg Crawford wrote:

Does anyone know the exact size of the supplied nylon washer? I
guess I can find out by taking the head apart, but would rather see
if anyone knows.

Thanks,

Milton

--- In Losmandy_users@..., "Steve Nightingale"
<snightingale40@h...> wrote:

--- In Losmandy_users@..., "Elton J. Chambers, Jr."
<cabinets@l...> wrote:

about such a solution). However, I could not find 0.030 Teflon

but

instead I found a sheet of 0.039 at McMaster & Carr for about $12

USD,

Hey Folks,

I just checked out the site. They also have 1/32 inch (.031") which
is
actually closer to the supplied .03" nylon washer.

Steve

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Losmandy_users-unsubscribe@...

Tom,

After another night fine tuning my G11 I still have not achieved your
guiding error rate.

So I'll keep trying. :-)

Two more questions: Do you use the King tracking rate? Do you find that the
PEC helps?

Greg Crawford

Hi Gil, The very first day I had my HGM-200 mount, I immediately knew
it needed lubing.
As you mention, the RA bearings are easy to inspect, and re-lube.
If you have noticed that these bearings seemed sticky, and reluctant to
freely rotate, then for sure, the same will apply to the Dec Bearings
also.
Don't hesitate to disassemble as I have mentioned earlier. It will be
worth the work.
What the reasoning is behind Scott's use of this lube, I just don't
know.
To me this grease resembles a heavy damping grease.
Provided that tolerances are tight (Which my HGM-200 was, absolutely no
slop in these areas) I don't see the reasoning behind using them, if
they will eventually dry out, and hinder/damage the bearings, and shaft
surfaces over time.
I don't think you could go wrong using ANY type of high-grade grease.
About the GOTO for the HGM-200, I had been asking this same question for
2 years. (1997)
This upgrade should have been made available quite some time ago, and
new issue mounts should have had it as standard by now
It was one of the key reasons that I sold my HGM-200,( Spring '99) and
ordered the AP1200GTO. (Expected In Oct.)
I just got tired of waiting, and hearing excuses.
Please do not take my critical remarks as being too harsh though, as the
HGM-200 is a very, very fine mount.
I had talked with the folks at Astrometric at the '99 Astrofest meet,
and they had considered doing one for this mount.
The differences are not that great between the G-11, and HGM-200. Mark

Signing off for 10 days ...going to look at some property near Bishop
Cal for my 30inch observatory site...OK, actually looking at
retirement
property, but with the 30 inch in mind.

Clear skies
Bill

Mark wrote:

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 17:36:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: markdambrosio@...
Subject: RE: HGM-200 Stiction

Hi Gil, To get at the dual Roller Bearings inside the Dec. Assembly,
you must first remove the Saddle Plate, which is held on by 4 Allen Cap
Screws.
(You may have to tap the allen wrench with a hammer to break the bolts
loose, Mine were tight.)
Then you will need a large set of Snap Ring Pliers to remove the Snap
ring that is present under the Saddle Plate (I found a pair at Sears,
Small snap ring pliers will not do the job adequately, it is a large
ring)
There are a couple of washers then I believe to come out. (Don't lose
thier orientation0,
Then the Large Dec.Clutch Wheel will unscrew from the shaft.
You will then be able to lift the Sub-Saddle Assembly (What the Top
Saddle Plate bolts to) completely off the Dec Shaft.
Clean the two Rollers Bearings very well with a solvent like
Turpentine/Naptha/Gasoline (Don't smoke!), and then repack the bearings
with your finger with a high quality grease.
Reverse this order for reassembly.
The difference will be dramatic! (Two finger movement at the scope once
it's balanced) If you have any questions feel free to e-mail me, Mark

Thanks for replying. Glad to see there's at least one other
HGM owner out there. I had not considered performing the operation
so soon since the mount is new, but I guess it wouldn't hurt.

I suppose the Permatex grease suggested earlier would be appropriate?

The stiction problem is a real bear, since I end up pushing the
scope back and forth over the same DSS reading, then have a tough
time composing in the eyepiece. In particular, once I've gotten
set up, and have PEC going, I don't like to give up that 8 minutes
to PEC training in order to have the slew speeds available for
finding and composing objects prior to photographing.

D'ya suppose that Scott might ever make a change in the
electronics so that PEC is permanent, or at least allows you to
use slew speeds without disabling it and having to start again?
This is a frustrating part of the operation of the mount.

Thanks again,

-- Gil

There are a couple of things you should know about the GM8 mounts in
general, and the G9 in particular. My G9 shared a "stiction"

problem with

the GM8s, particularly in DEC. A replacement teflon bushing from

Scott

Losmandy resolved this problem, although it introduced a minor

issue: the

DEC clutch must be tightened more to achieve the same amount of

resistance.

IMO, that's a minor irritation, compared to the stiction problem,

which was

a HUGE pain-in-the-***!

Gee, this sounds familiar....so Scott has already had this fix in
his bag of tricks for the G9. When I emailed him about replacing the
nylon clutch washer with teflon on my G11, I got the impression from
his response that it was a new idea. Nothing was said about the fact
that he already did this on the G9. Hmmmm...curiouser and curiouser.

Bill

--- Jack Metcalfe <jlmetcalfe@...> wrote:

A couple of questions and hopefully some recommendations from the
group. It's been quite a while since I've had a scope for
observing, but the bug has bitten again. Years ago, I had a Cave
Astrola on a GEM and a few years after that, a C-8 on a fork mount.
Currently, I'm most interested in a Celestron 9.25, but I don't
like Celestron's mount.

Question 1. Would the Losmandy GM-8 be adequate with the 9.25 or is
this overkill for visual use only?

Hi Jack. Congrats on getting back into the hobby! I recently acquired an
older CG9 (the C9.25 on a Losmandy G9 mount) and really like it. The C9.25
seems to be slightly superior to other commercial SCTs that I've looked
through. I have to admit that the focus micrometer that is built into mine
(it's the older model) is a wonderful, wonderful thing. Too bad that don't
still include that feature. If I bought one now, I'd probably add the JMI
aftermarket DRO.

The mount is a good match for this instrument for visual use only. No, it's
not overkill. IMO, it's not enough mount for this scope for prime focus
photography.

There are a couple of things you should know about the GM8 mounts in
general, and the G9 in particular. My G9 shared a "stiction" problem with
the GM8s, particularly in DEC. A replacement teflon bushing from Scott
Losmandy resolved this problem, although it introduced a minor issue: the
DEC clutch must be tightened more to achieve the same amount of resistance.
IMO, that's a minor irritation, compared to the stiction problem, which was
a HUGE pain-in-the-***!

There are two downsides to the G9 mount compared to the GM8, and one
upside. First, it came on the infamous extruded aluminum tripod that
Celestron and others use on many of their mounts. Calling it a tripod does
serious offense to all legitimate tripods in the world! <g> I knew about
this problem in advance, so it wasn't a surprise. Fortunately, I had an
older Celestron SP mount with the nice hardwood legs. I swapped tripods,
and the improvement is dramatic. Still, I lust after the GM8 tripod and
will probably invest in one someday soon.

The second issue was a complete surprise, and quite a disappointment. I
have seen people state over and over that the G9 head is the same as the
GM8, but when I disassembled it to clean and relube it, I discovered that
IT HAS NO NEEDLE BEARINGS ON EITHER AXIS! There are simply polished
aluminum bearing surfaces. There are washer-type roller bearings at the
clutch-end of each shaft.

I asked Scott if needle bearings could be press-fitted into the shaft
housings, and he said that it would be difficult and expensive. Bummer.

The upside of the G9 is that it comes with the G11 saddle plate, instead of
the smaller GM8 one. This helps me immensely because I have an older GM100,
which uses the G11-style dovetail system. All my OTAs, SBS assemblies,
etc., are completely interchangeable.

Question 2. Are there other mount options for this instrument?
Actually, I always thought the fork mount was fine for visual use,
but it's no longer available for the 9.25.

IMO, the current G9 is a pretty good deal. The C9.25 OTA on its own sells
for only $100 less, and I assume (I know, I know...) that you could
probably sell the mount for a lot more than that. Maybe not.

You might consider a Vixen GP-DX mount, if you can purchase one with a
wooden tripod instead of the aluminum one. Other than these two mounts, you
pretty quickly get up into the price range of the G11- hey, that's not a
bad idea! (IMO, if you can afford the price difference, which is about
$500, get the G11.)

Cheers,
Paul Sterngold

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.

Hi Jack,

From my limited understanding, the GM-8 is a fine mount for the C9.25.
David Silva uses exactly this setup, and is quite happy.

Robert.

A couple of questions and hopefully some recommendations from the
group. It's been quite a while since I've had a scope for
observing, but the bug has bitten again. Years ago, I had a Cave
Astrola on a GEM and a few years after that, a C-8 on a fork mount.
Currently, I'm most interested in a Celestron 9.25, but I don't
like Celestron's mount.

Question 1. Would the Losmandy GM-8 be adequate with the 9.25 or is
this overkill for visual use only?

Question 2. Are there other mount options for this instrument?
Actually, I always thought the fork mount was fine for visual use,
but it's no longer available for the 9.25.