Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Mounts

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | (show all)
freestar8n
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/12/07

Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: orlyandico]
      #4886806 - 10/29/11 11:40 AM

Quote:

The encoders on the Tak mounts (the later ones, e.g. EM200) are indeed on the RA and DEC axis. They don't have to be million-tick like the TDM, since they don't need to measure periodic error, they are solely for pointing. A 10000-tick encoder is probably plenty for this application (and costs $20 in bulk) -- all DSC's out there use either 2000-, 4000- or 10000-tick encoders on the RA and DEC axes. Even 50000- to 100000-tick encoders aren't crazy expensive like the Gurleys and Renishaws. Of course you won't get sub-arcsecond pointing but for GoTo that is probably not needed.




I agree it would be nice to have absolute encoders on the axes, and when I first used a computerized mount I felt hindered by not being able to move it by hand. But I got used to it, and I don't think there is a big demand for it expressed very much in these forums for example, while there is a constant demand to keep prices down. So - to answer your question as to why they don't include them - I don't think there is a big demand, and they are trying to keep cost down.

I don't think I would pay extra for 100000 tick encoders, but I would one day like a high end mount with sub arc-second absolute encoders - which I think may start to be common. The question is - will they penetrate the mid-range market much.

Frank


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jerry Hubbell
member
*****

Reged: 02/16/09

Loc: Locust Grove, VA, USA
Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: Ray Gralak]
      #4886820 - 10/29/11 11:45 AM

Quote:

Hi Jerry,

Interesting that you should mention cost! In general I think higher end gear holds its value more and generally looks and works better and longer than cheaper gear. For instance my AP1200 still looks great after 5-6 years of use while a couple cheap mounts I own have corroding bolts already. The value of the cheap mounts probably has gone down more than my expensive mounts. In general I think most higher-end mounts are designed to last longer while cheaper mounts have had "corners cut" to make them as cheap as possible and probably not last as long. I think you know what I'm talking about, I hope?

If one is really interested in this hobby they will likely progress from less expensive mounts up to more expensive mounts. If they just save and purchase a good expensive mount first then in the long run I think they may save money. It might cost a lot more initially but over the long term they won't lose money every time they upgrade. If they started with a higher-end mount it would retain value better, last longer, and they will probably be a lot happier with the imaging results they get.

-Ray




Hi Ray,

thanks for the thoughtful response. I understand what you are saying about the value of the more expensive high quality mounts. Consider this though, as you well know, this hobby for the last 10-15 years has been driven by the baby boomers who have the disposable income to invest in the new technologies, and have made it somewhat of a golden age for amateur astronomy.

We are getting older and I think the goal should be to get as many younger people involved as we can. In that regard, having high performance lower cost equipment available on the market really makes a difference in attracting the younger folks to this hobby. Both you and I know that even if it is the best policy to buy the higher quality equipment, 90% of the buyers just don't have the income.

For me, I was out of astronomy for several years, and in the late 80's and 90's I was strictly visual, I had tried some astrophotography but it was very frustrating. Three years ago, I decided to see how the technology progressed and found that it was to the point where I could really get into it with both feet. My main goal in purchasing the level of equipment I bought was to train myself in the use of the latest technologies, and see how much I could do for the least amount of money. I wanted to get 80% of the bang for 30% of the cost. I think I am just about there, and I have also taught myself what is important and what isn't so that when I invest 30-50k into a system when I retire, I will know what I am doing. That is what the lower cost equipment has done for me.

It can get very frustrating for beginners to visit star parties and see and touch the latest state-of-the-art amateur equipment and realize that it is practically impossible to invest < $3000 total and expect to get anywhere near the performance, even with spending 2-3 years of continuous study and practice, of what we are talking about. So in my mind, anything that brings the performance up in equipment available to the beginner goes a long way to maintaining the vitality and ongoing sustainability of our hobby. Sure, it may not meet 100% of the requirements that high end users expect, but if we can get 80% there for 30% of the cost, why not. It will always cost a lot to get that extra 20% and we are lucky to have people like you willing to invest in that technology.

Thanks again for the discussion, I think it has been valuable.

Jerry Hubbell
Lake of the Woods Observatory (MPC I24)
Locust Grove, VA


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ray Gralak
Vendor (PEMPro)


Reged: 04/19/08

Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: Jerry Hubbell]
      #4886849 - 10/29/11 11:58 AM

Hi Jerry,

Quote:

Quote:

Hi Jerry,

Interesting that you should mention cost! In general I think higher end gear holds its value more and generally looks and works better and longer than cheaper gear. For instance my AP1200 still looks great after 5-6 years of use while a couple cheap mounts I own have corroding bolts already. The value of the cheap mounts probably has gone down more than my expensive mounts. In general I think most higher-end mounts are designed to last longer while cheaper mounts have had "corners cut" to make them as cheap as possible and probably not last as long. I think you know what I'm talking about, I hope?

If one is really interested in this hobby they will likely progress from less expensive mounts up to more expensive mounts. If they just save and purchase a good expensive mount first then in the long run I think they may save money. It might cost a lot more initially but over the long term they won't lose money every time they upgrade. If they started with a higher-end mount it would retain value better, last longer, and they will probably be a lot happier with the imaging results they get.

-Ray




Hi Ray,

thanks for the thoughtful response. I understand what you are saying about the value of the more expensive high quality mounts. Consider this though, as you well know, this hobby for the last 10-15 years has been driven by the baby boomers who have the disposable income to invest in the new technologies, and have made it somewhat of a golden age for amateur astronomy.

We are getting older and I think the goal should be to get as many younger people involved as we can. In that regard, having high performance lower cost equipment available on the market really makes a difference in attracting the younger folks to this hobby. Both you and I know that even if it is the best policy to buy the higher quality equipment, 90% of the buyers just don't have the income.

For me, I was out of astronomy for several years, and in the late 80's and 90's I was strictly visual, I had tried some astrophotography but it was very frustrating. Three years ago, I decided to see how the technology progressed and found that it was to the point where I could really get into it with both feet. My main goal in purchasing the level of equipment I bought was to train myself in the use of the latest technologies, and see how much I could do for the least amount of money. I wanted to get 80% of the bang for 30% of the cost. I think I am just about there, and I have also taught myself what is important and what isn't so that when I invest 30-50k into a system when I retire, I will know what I am doing. That is what the lower cost equipment has done for me.

It can get very frustrating for beginners to visit star parties and see and touch the latest state-of-the-art amateur equipment and realize that it is practically impossible to invest < $3000 total and expect to get anywhere near the performance, even with spending 2-3 years of continuous study and practice, of what we are talking about. So in my mind, anything that brings the performance up in equipment available to the beginner goes a long way to maintaining the vitality and ongoing sustainability of our hobby. Sure, it may not meet 100% of the requirements that high end users expect, but if we can get 80% there for 30% of the cost, why not. It will always cost a lot to get that extra 20% and we are lucky to have people like you willing to invest in that technology.

Thanks again for the discussion, I think it has been valuable.

Jerry Hubbell
Lake of the Woods Observatory (MPC I24)
Locust Grove, VA



You make many good points! I do agree with the issue of money is an important one, and that everyone has their own limit on how much they can spend. I strongly believe there is good value in many lower end and mid range mounts, especially coupled with a TDM. My main point was only that there is extra performance to be had on higher end mounts. it might only be an extra 20%, or 10%, or 5%, but it's there. It kind of is similar to the audiophile equipment marketplace. That last 10% costs you a lot of $$!!

In any case. this has been an enjoyable discussion, Jerry. I wish you the best luck with your equipment. I'll keep an eye out for new images from you!

Take care,

-Ray


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
freestar8n
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/12/07

Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: Jerry Hubbell]
      #4886860 - 10/29/11 12:03 PM

Quote:

Finding a bright enough guide star is always problematic. Plus the trend is towards lower focal length, smaller guidescopes. This creates a problem in that the plate scale for the guiding image does not have enough resolution to correct to sub arcsecond movements, especially when the seeing is not that poor. So the answer of course is to use guidescope similar to the old days with long focal lengths and smaller fields of view which only aggravates the issue of finding a bright enough guide star.




For tight guiding with mirror optics at long focal length, I would only consider off-axis guiding, or dual-chip - i.e. common optical path. I'm not interested in trying to get optimal results with a guidescope, and I'm not interested in multiple star guiding because of the longer exposures required, and corresponding latency. Instead I use centroid analysis of multiple video frames of a single star. Finding a guide star with OAG is not so bad if you use a planetarium FOVI and dial it in ahead of time - but either way I consider OAG or dual-chip to be essential for optimal results when guiding mirror optics.

As for difficulty tuning - again I think that can be a limitation of software. In my case I strictly show plots and so forth in arc-second scale as the relevant fundamental unit - so that if you change the guide focal length or something, the scale that determine the error correction is unchanged. Furthermore, I show live error plots that update every 0.5 seconds - providing a good "feel" for the error as you change things like aggressiveness - and this update rate is independent of the effective exposure time because it is video-based. Overall this makes it easy to dial in good parameters, and those parameters change little except due to seeing conditions.

Guided imaging does not require a critical polar alignment, unlike non-guided imaging with no dec. corrections, though I recommend getting it as close as possible. With a celestron mount you can have it setup and polar aligned adequately in a matter of minutes, in bright twilight, using the AllStar polar alignment routine. All of this greatly reduces setup time and doesn't rely on extra hardware or software. Tracking and guide error plots don't tell the whole story of what is really happening at the image plane.

My main point in all this is that you are comparing your experience and results of your current setup with a previous setup - but it is not a comprehensive conclusion because I don't think you explored all the options that are available with freely available software and no additional hardware. And the best way to show deep sky guiding results is to show non-binned long exposures at long focal length with corresponding fwhm's of the stars.

But you do have what appears to be a concrete result of a low-cost setup that works well for unguided 1-3m exposures. I don't know anything that beats it in that price range, and it shows at least one clear win of the tdm with an inexpensive mount.

Frank


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
psandelle
professor emeritus


Reged: 06/18/08

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: freestar8n]
      #4886877 - 10/29/11 12:14 PM

Really great discussion - I'm enjoying it, and scratching my head and having to go research some of the points myself (and on a Saturday!).

I will be curious when Explore Scientific's new mount comes out. It has a TDM build in (along with the nifty right-angled polar scope) I believe, and supposedly in the 5 to 7 grand range (if I'm not mistaken). That would be one and a half to two times Jerry's price range...but still, if it were the whole kit AND the kaboodle, I think that might fit the bill.

Paul

Edited by psandelle (10/29/11 12:15 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jerry Hubbell
member
*****

Reged: 02/16/09

Loc: Locust Grove, VA, USA
Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: Ray Gralak]
      #4886893 - 10/29/11 12:27 PM

Quote:

Hi Jerry,

You make many good points! I do agree with the issue of money is an important one, and that everyone has their own limit on how much they can spend. I strongly believe there is good value in many lower end and mid range mounts, especially coupled with a TDM. My main point was only that there is extra performance to be had on higher end mounts. it might only be an extra 20%, or 10%, or 5%, but it's there. It kind of is similar to the audiophile equipment marketplace. That last 10% costs you a lot of $$!!

In any case. this has been an enjoyable discussion, Jerry. I wish you the best luck with your equipment. I'll keep an eye out for new images from you!

Take care,

-Ray




Thanks Ray, I have enjoyed this discusson very much also. I always like to flex my debating muscles every now and again, this is the first one for me on Cloudy Nights. You have given me a lot of good information on the differences on higher end and lower end mounts, and the value that each brings to the table. I appreciate your interest in my work, you may be able to count me as a PEMPRO customer in the future if the need arises.

Clear Skies!

Jerry Hubbell
Lake of the Woods Observatory (MPC I24)
Locust Grove, VA


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jerry Hubbell
member
*****

Reged: 02/16/09

Loc: Locust Grove, VA, USA
Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: freestar8n]
      #4886905 - 10/29/11 12:36 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Finding a bright enough guide star is always problematic. Plus the trend is towards lower focal length, smaller guidescopes. This creates a problem in that the plate scale for the guiding image does not have enough resolution to correct to sub arcsecond movements, especially when the seeing is not that poor. So the answer of course is to use guidescope similar to the old days with long focal lengths and smaller fields of view which only aggravates the issue of finding a bright enough guide star.




For tight guiding with mirror optics at long focal length, I would only consider off-axis guiding, or dual-chip - i.e. common optical path. I'm not interested in trying to get optimal results with a guidescope, and I'm not interested in multiple star guiding because of the longer exposures required, and corresponding latency. Instead I use centroid analysis of multiple video frames of a single star. Finding a guide star with OAG is not so bad if you use a planetarium FOVI and dial it in ahead of time - but either way I consider OAG or dual-chip to be essential for optimal results when guiding mirror optics.

As for difficulty tuning - again I think that can be a limitation of software. In my case I strictly show plots and so forth in arc-second scale as the relevant fundamental unit - so that if you change the guide focal length or something, the scale that determine the error correction is unchanged. Furthermore, I show live error plots that update every 0.5 seconds - providing a good "feel" for the error as you change things like aggressiveness - and this update rate is independent of the effective exposure time because it is video-based. Overall this makes it easy to dial in good parameters, and those parameters change little except due to seeing conditions.

Guided imaging does not require a critical polar alignment, unlike non-guided imaging with no dec. corrections, though I recommend getting it as close as possible. With a celestron mount you can have it setup and polar aligned adequately in a matter of minutes, in bright twilight, using the AllStar polar alignment routine. All of this greatly reduces setup time and doesn't rely on extra hardware or software. Tracking and guide error plots don't tell the whole story of what is really happening at the image plane.

My main point in all this is that you are comparing your experience and results of your current setup with a previous setup - but it is not a comprehensive conclusion because I don't think you explored all the options that are available with freely available software and no additional hardware. And the best way to show deep sky guiding results is to show non-binned long exposures at long focal length with corresponding fwhm's of the stars.

But you do have what appears to be a concrete result of a low-cost setup that works well for unguided 1-3m exposures. I don't know anything that beats it in that price range, and it shows at least one clear win of the tdm with an inexpensive mount.

Frank




Thanks Frank, I understand your point about comparing my old setup with the new one, and maybe not exploring the full extent of what is available. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and will re-evaluate my needs in that area. I can foresee that even with the TDM, for long focal length, Long (20-60 minute) exposures guiding will be very necessary with my setup. I am just not into that at the present, but I need to get into that in order to round out my skill set. The TDM does make provisions for using a guidng camera, and it is seemlessly integrated into the system.

As far as using the OAG for guiding, that is all well and good for normal non-filtered, or photometric filtered work, but it does not work for narrow band imaging, as others have said, and I have read. In order to do narrow band imaging effectively through an OAG setup, you need either a very high end mount with low PE or on a lower cost mount with the TDM driver corrector. I do have an OAG setup that I have used with my AT8RC that I can conceivably do effective narrow band imaging with coupled with the EQ6 and TDM.

Thanks again for your thoughtful discussion.

Jerry Hubbell
Lake of the Woods Observatory (MPC I24)
Locust Grove, VA


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Alph
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 11/23/06

Loc: Melmac
Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: orlyandico]
      #4886916 - 10/29/11 12:43 PM

Quote:

I don't really see how the TDM price can go much lower. Maybe (just maybe) it can hit $1000




The price could be cut significantly if the electronics box was removed from the equation. The electronics box alone costs $1800 while the custom mount adapter that includes the encoder costs just $400. I don’t see any reason why a mount could not be driven from your laptop. So here is a challenge for someone with skills and plenty of time to make that electronic box obsolete. Are there any plans to do just that?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orlyandico
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 08/10/09

Loc: Singapore
Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: Alph]
      #4886927 - 10/29/11 12:54 PM

The adapter + encoder only costs $400?

I thought the encoder + box was $1800 and the adapter was extra. I tried (and failed) to find a Gurley million-tick encoder for under $500. They were about $900.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jerry Hubbell
member
*****

Reged: 02/16/09

Loc: Locust Grove, VA, USA
Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: orlyandico]
      #4886957 - 10/29/11 01:11 PM

Your are correct, Alph you misunderstood, the Encoder + the microcontroller is $1800. The mount adapter can cost from $330 to $400. See
http://store.explorescientific.com/tdmtelescopedrivemasterver2encoderandelectronicssetrequiresmountadapter.aspx

Jerry Hubbell
Lake of the Woods Observatory (MPC I24)
Locust Grove, VA


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jmiele
Patron Saint?
*****

Reged: 12/04/10

Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: Ray Gralak]
      #4886969 - 10/29/11 01:16 PM

"Actually, TPoint cannot correct for periodic error. That is still done with PEC. But some higher end mounts, like Astro-Physics mounts, ship with PEC already recorded so, without installing anything extra you get a mount with typically less than 1 arc-sec PE."

Ray, Just a note. While AP does record a PE track before shipping it's by no means a to the level required for astrophotography. It may be, just not a sure thing. You statement makes it seem like AP is one of the only ways to get this. I'm sure that wasn't your intent.

So, let clear several things up. I've purchased a 1200, 900 and Mach I this year. None of which came with anything below 4 arc second PE - with the AP training. I've purchased both a Paramount ME and Paramount MX this year as well. The ME has PE at .8 arc seconds P2P untrained. The MX 4 arc second also - untrained.

IME mount accuracy for pointing with the supplied software goes like this:

Bisque
Celestron
AP is somewhere down the line. sorry that's a fact as of today
Tak

For PE it's like this:
Bisque
Tak
AP
The rest...

When the new software comes along then we will see. Believe me however, I go with whatever is best and should AP take the crown I will be the first to say so. I think discrediting T-Point is inappropriate. T-Point is integral to the Bisque products and works with the Paramounts and ProTrack to do things you are only now "trying to do". When you do them, let me know... I'd love to see them....even buy them. Until the we should focus more on what available today and the OP's thread intend.

You know I'm a fan Ray, but as the AP Software release has progressed I've seen a trend in the way it's being discussed. If you want to compare apples and apples you'll have to have an OPEN beta. Otherwise, we'll wait and see what we see when ALL have access. In several posts we are getting teasers and things leading people to believe things. I don't find it appropriate. I will be looking for such in all these posts.

Bisque mounts go with ALL the Bisque software suite. When they are considered they should be considered as a package. Comparing them without would be like asking what an AP mount can do without it's hand control. That answer is clear - nothing.

These comment reference several posts concerning AP software and comparisons currently being made with other products..


Joe

Edited by jmiele (10/29/11 02:17 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CounterWeight
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Palo alto, CA.
Re: Telescope Drive Master new [Re: Jerry Hubbell]
      #4886974 - 10/29/11 01:18 PM

Jerry, Ray, all-

Really interesting discussion and great points made (Jerry - no my real name 'Jim' is in my sigline). IMO this TDM aftermarket 'mod' adds a great alternative to the community. I think the marketing is a fair representation and the relative straightforward plug-and-play are great There are a great many threads here where mount owners have gone to far greater time and effort (watever the cost, wait times, availability of parts and etc) to improve a lower range mount with far less discrenable results. That this is quick, immediate, and IMO very simple - huge plusses. Priced IMO very fair. Most important is that it does what it says, quickly, simply, that was one of the main take aways from the reviews / write ups.

Again my thanks to all the great contributions in the thread.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
harry page 1
sage


Reged: 07/25/09

Re: Telescope Drive Master new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #4887020 - 10/29/11 01:40 PM

Hi

I have just recently purchased the TDM kit and have fitted it to my rather One off scope

My scope uncorrected was about 20 -30 arc sec peak to peak and with the aid of pempro got this down to about 6 arc sec peak to peak but My scope suffers from some small bumps etc which could not be removed with training .
I must admit I did not expect perfection with the TDM on my mount as I had to do some rustic additions
But with little effort I got the promised 1 sec tracking the plug and play is very easy indeed and personally think its well worth the money and think it will aid my hunt for a decent image greatly
A small write up on my web page Harrysastroshed
Regards Harry


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
freestar8n
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/12/07

Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: Jerry Hubbell]
      #4887039 - 10/29/11 01:51 PM

Quote:

As far as using the OAG for guiding, that is all well and good for normal non-filtered, or photometric filtered work, but it does not work for narrow band imaging, as others have said, and I have read.




I'm afraid that's a common misconception. Narrow-band is where OAG shines - because the filters are after the pickoff mirror. So - the guide camera sees unfiltered light - unlike the other main mode of common-path guiding, which is dual chip. I don't know anyone with OAG who puts the filters in front of the pickoff mirror - there is no reason to.

I have lots of examples with my C11 and cge, and later a cge-pro, on the MetaGuide site. When I bought the c11 and cge as a unit years ago, together they were $3999. The OAG I mainly use is a taurus-mini that cost a few hundred dollars and weighs less than a typical guidescope. The guide camera I use is a Lumenera, which is relatively expensive but doubles for planetary work and many other uses - as opposed to a simple guide ccd that is mainly for guiding. The associated software I uses is MetaGuide (free) and I do PEC training with the free PECTool from Celestron. This keeps all the costs down and achieves very tight stars in long, narrow band exposures.

Video guiding with MetaGuide and OAG is very different from normal guiding with a guidescope - and requires some effort to make the change. But that's also true of switching to hardware encoders. So - for people doing deep sky work - I'm hoping there will be more such examples when combining tdm with a mid-range mount so we can have a more direct comparison.

Thanks - and have fun with your new setup.

Frank


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jerry Hubbell
member
*****

Reged: 02/16/09

Loc: Locust Grove, VA, USA
Re: Telescope Drive Master new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #4887042 - 10/29/11 01:53 PM

Quote:

Jerry, Ray, all-

Really interesting discussion and great points made (Jerry - no my real name 'Jim' is in my sigline).




Hey Jim, sorry about that I just now located your name in your signature. I very much appreciate your thoughts and glad you enjoyed the discussion. I think it is a very honest assessment of the TDM and the things we must consider when purchasing such a device. I would put the recent availabilty of Active Optics Guiders such as this one from Orion in the same catagory:

http://www.telescope.com/Astrophotography/Autoguiding-Solutions/Orion-SteadyStar-Adaptive-Optics-Guider-with-Rotator/pc/-1/c/4/sc/60/p/53077.uts?sortByColumnName=SortByPriceDescending

I consider this as a complement to TDM and maybe a replacement for an off-axis guider. The impact of this technology is interesting in the way people will react to it, and put it to use.

Jerry Hubbell
Lake of the Woods Observatory (MPC I24)
Locust Grove, VA


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orlyandico
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 08/10/09

Loc: Singapore
Re: Telescope Drive Master new [Re: harry page 1]
      #4887043 - 10/29/11 01:54 PM

harry, that's an amazing mount! if there's any pudding to prove the TDM "does what its advertised to" then harry's photo should be it.

what gear are you using on it?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
harry page 1
sage


Reged: 07/25/09

Re: Telescope Drive Master new [Re: orlyandico]
      #4887060 - 10/29/11 02:04 PM

Hi

Well there is the 14" newt on which I am using a sx H35 camera , The advantage of this mount is I can just bolt anything on it I even sat on it once to see if it could take the weight

Harry


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jerry Hubbell
member
*****

Reged: 02/16/09

Loc: Locust Grove, VA, USA
Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: freestar8n]
      #4887070 - 10/29/11 02:12 PM

Quote:

Quote:

As far as using the OAG for guiding, that is all well and good for normal non-filtered, or photometric filtered work, but it does not work for narrow band imaging, as others have said, and I have read.




I'm afraid that's a common misconception. Narrow-band is where OAG shines - because the filters are after the pickoff mirror. So - the guide camera sees unfiltered light - unlike the other main mode of common-path guiding, which is dual chip. I don't know anyone with OAG who puts the filters in front of the pickoff mirror - there is no reason to.

Thanks - and have fun with your new setup.

Frank




Hey Frank, I do apologize, I was thinking about the SBIG dual chip cameras that put the guiding chip adjacent to the imaging chip. Those are the type of cameras and OAG I had in my mind. Sorry for that. You are very much correct about the filtering being after the pick-up mirror. That would work very well indeed. The Active Optics Guider would have similar performance I believe.

Sorry about the confusion (on my part! )

Thanks

Jerry Hubbell
Lake of the Woods Observatory (MPC I24)
Locust Grove, VA


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Alph
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 11/23/06

Loc: Melmac
Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter new [Re: Jerry Hubbell]
      #4887074 - 10/29/11 02:15 PM

Quote:

Your are correct, Alph you misunderstood, the Encoder + the microcontroller is $1800. The mount adapter can cost from $330 to $400. See
http://store.explorescientific.com/tdmtelescopedrivemasterver2encoderandelectronicssetrequiresmountadapter.aspx

Jerry Hubbell
Lake of the Woods Observatory (MPC I24)
Locust Grove, VA



Thanks for the clarification. Nonetheless I still think that the electronics box is a significant cost factor.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ray Gralak
Vendor (PEMPro)


Reged: 04/19/08

Re: Telescope Drive Master - The Truth of the Matter *DELETED* new [Re: jmiele]
      #4887204 - 10/29/11 03:41 PM

Post deleted by David Pavlich

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | (show all)


Extra information
28 registered and 33 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Dave M, richard7, bilgebay 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 18212

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics