Some RCX400 internals images

Thanks to some posters in the RCX400 Yahoo group, here's some images of
the insides of the RCX400:

http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0817?full=1
http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0812?full=1
http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0818?full=1

and many more he
http://www.tv-shopper.com/MEADE/

and some older RCX400 pics everyone's probably already seen from inside
the Meade factory:
http://www.optcorp.com/meade/optrcxexclusive.aspx

Now, if only someone would take one outside and take some images
*through* the scope!

It's mount looks so flexible, that any kind of photography of CCD
shooting
looks quite problematic.
The base (with drive gears) should be at least 1.7x larger.


VD

In article . com, "Vader" wrote:
It's mount looks so flexible, that any kind of photography of CCD
shooting
looks quite problematic.
The base (with drive gears) should be at least 1.7x larger.

I'm afraid I'd have to concur. Leaving aside questions of the fork bouncing
(something I've seen more than enough times as a for LX owner), the wedge
doesn't look nearly robust enough.

OTOH, as others have pointed out, if Meade's willing to sell the RCX400 as an
OTA only, that's fixable. But then again, someone who's willing to go to that
trouble might very well just skip that step and buy a real RC to begin with.
---
Mike
http://www.concentric.net/~richmann

On 14 Jan 2005 04:37:59 -0800, "Peter [astro.mp]"
wrote:

Thanks to some posters in the RCX400 Yahoo group, here's some images of
the insides of the RCX400:

http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0817?full=1
http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0812?full=1
http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0818?full=1

and many more he
http://www.tv-shopper.com/MEADE/

and some older RCX400 pics everyone's probably already seen from inside
the Meade factory:
http://www.optcorp.com/meade/optrcxexclusive.aspx

Now, if only someone would take one outside and take some images
*through* the scope!

Too bad the shot of the front of the scope wasn't clear. But
I see more "machining" of internals than with the LX200s.
-Rich

On 14 Jan 2005 04:37:59 -0800, "Peter [astro.mp]" wrote:

Thanks to some posters in the RCX400 Yahoo group, here's some images of
the insides of the RCX400:

http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0817?full=1
http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0812?full=1
http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0818?full=1

and many more he
http://www.tv-shopper.com/MEADE/

Hmmm... looks like the same cheesy pseudo worm gears they use in the LX200 line.
That doesn't make me too optimistic that this will compete with high end mounts.
We'll see- maybe some of the internals here are just prototypes.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On 14 Jan 2005 04:37:59 -0800, "Peter [astro.mp]"
wrote:

Thanks to some posters in the RCX400 Yahoo group, here's some images of
the insides of the RCX400:

http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0817?full=1
http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0812?full=1
http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0818?full=1

and many more he
http://www.tv-shopper.com/MEADE/

Hmmm... looks like the same cheesy pseudo worm gears they use in the
LX200 line.
That doesn't make me too optimistic that this will compete with high end
mounts.
We'll see- maybe some of the internals here are just prototypes.
The ones that worry me, are the three focusser motors. These have the same
'mouse' encoders used on most of the other Meade motors, which implies
there is no real positional feedback for the corrector (they are dependant
on the accuracy of the threads, and the slop in the gears). After some
wear, the 'zero backlash' claims will begin to look poor. I had been
hoping, that they might have taken a lesson out of most inkjet printers,
and used a linear 'strip' optical encoder, to actually allow the
secondary/corrector position to be read. Then as play starts to appear in
the mechanism, and if there is any iregularity in the threads, the system
would compensate for it. Given how cheap such encoders now are, this
seemed the logical way to design the system to be really accurately
repeatable...

Best Wishes

"Peter [astro.mp]" wrote:

Thanks to some posters in the RCX400 Yahoo group, here's some images of
the insides of the RCX400:

http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0812?full=1

In the above image there appear to be three rotary optical encoders
(the white disks with fins) at the back of the OTA. Are these for the
moving secondary focusser/collimation system? If they are there must
be rods running from the back, inside the OTA, to the secondary. If
they used metal rods focus shift with temperature could be
significant.


Tim
--
This is not my signature.

Central Obstruction looks pretty large!

"Peter [astro.mp]" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks to some posters in the RCX400 Yahoo group, here's some images of
the insides of the RCX400:

http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0817?full=1
http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0812?full=1
http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0818?full=1

and many more he
http://www.tv-shopper.com/MEADE/

and some older RCX400 pics everyone's probably already seen from inside
the Meade factory:
http://www.optcorp.com/meade/optrcxexclusive.aspx

Now, if only someone would take one outside and take some images
*through* the scope!

yes, the linear, absolute strip encoders would be nice, but putting
three or four of them into the system would cost at least $200, and
probably bump the retail price up by $500. Meade already uses the rotary
discs in their other products, so the cost is minimal.

It may be a shock to some, but I suspect a major goal of these RCX
scopes is to increase Meade's profits.

Roger Hamlett wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

On 14 Jan 2005 04:37:59 -0800, "Peter [astro.mp]"
wrote:


Thanks to some posters in the RCX400 Yahoo group, here's some images of
the insides of the RCX400:

http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0817?full=1
http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0812?full=1
http://astroskys.com/v-web/gallery/t...00_0818?full=1

and many more he
http://www.tv-shopper.com/MEADE/

Hmmm... looks like the same cheesy pseudo worm gears they use in the
LX200 line.
That doesn't make me too optimistic that this will compete with high end
mounts.
We'll see- maybe some of the internals here are just prototypes.

The ones that worry me, are the three focusser motors. These have the same
'mouse' encoders used on most of the other Meade motors, which implies
there is no real positional feedback for the corrector (they are dependant
on the accuracy of the threads, and the slop in the gears). After some
wear, the 'zero backlash' claims will begin to look poor. I had been
hoping, that they might have taken a lesson out of most inkjet printers,
and used a linear 'strip' optical encoder, to actually allow the
secondary/corrector position to be read. Then as play starts to appear in
the mechanism, and if there is any iregularity in the threads, the system
would compensate for it. Given how cheap such encoders now are, this
seemed the logical way to design the system to be really accurately
repeatable...

Best Wishes

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:58:04 GMT, "Roger Hamlett"
wrote:

The ones that worry me, are the three focusser motors. These have the same
'mouse' encoders used on most of the other Meade motors, which implies
there is no real positional feedback for the corrector...

Well, whether this is a problem or not really depends on the design. The loads
are low, and with the right choice of materials (I'd use Invar lead screws and a
glass-filled Rulon or similar nuts, split for anti-backlash) there is no reason
a system like this can't be accurate and repeatable to well under 1/1000 inch.
With thermal effects, it isn't easy to control any linear encoder system to that
level, and absolute linear encoders are quite expensive. I'd say there is
nothing inherently wrong with their approach.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com