College Telescope

"Richard DeLuca" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Roger Hamlett" wrote:

SNIP_
The main
problems though are with the unit itself. The display is a typical
modern
LCD, using an EL backlight. Unfortunately, such backlights, cannot be
dimmed
very much. The displays themselves tend to 'leak' light at narrow angles
to
the face. To my mind, they should have chosen LED backlighting instead
(allowing the display to be dimmed to practically black), and added a
'rim'
round the display to catch the leakage. Without this, the intensity at
night, is awful. You cannot use the normal solution of a red filter,
because
the colours chosen on the display become unreadable. So a ND filter is
needed instead.
Seperately, the software is pretty good, but some things are very
annoying.
You cannot (for instance), 're-align' on a selected alignment star. Once
an
alignment is made, if you choose any star withing ten degrees of one of
the
selected stars, it refuses to accept it. The old SkySensor offers you
instead, the option to replace the nearest star, and this is a much
better
solution.
At present, it is a nice 'toy', but it needs the autoguider input
working, a
few 'tweaks' to the software, and perhaps an optional 'sleeve', with a
ND
filter to lower the brightness, before it can become a rightful
complement
to the mount hardware itself.
It seems well able to handle it's rated load, and the published figure,
is
if anything 'conservative' compared to the specifications of many
mounts.
However given the long focal length of an SCT, I'd say that the C9.25,
was
just about at the very upper limit of the mount, especially for imaging
(where I am a firm believer in having relatively 'overrated' mounts).


We also have a new Vixen SPHINX mount, and it supports a TV NP101 which
is only about 12 lbs with diagonal and finder. Vixen states a load
capacity of 22 lbs, and I don't doubt that it is an accurate and
conservative figure.

Vixen has received lots of complaints about the brightness of the star
book hand controller. They now have produced a sleeve to dim the star
book, and they are providing them free of charge to all owners.

I generally agree with your other assessments of the Sphinx, and want to
add just one more- not all NGC objects are currently in the database.
That's another problem that I'm sure is easily rectified.

Starry Skies,
Rich
That is very good news about the 'sleeve'.
With devices where the software is upgradeable like this, I am fairly happy
to accept that there will need to be a few 'tweak cycles', on the initial
versions, but do feel that the lack of the autoguider, should have been
fixable very quickly, if there was not some 'deeper' reason preventing it
being implemented. This just 'worries' a little...
I have actually tried the mount loaded close to it's max, and found that
this cured the slight vibration I was seeing with a lighter scope. There may
actually be a 'minimum' weight that works well with the mount!. It may well
be that this vibration is also software 'fixable', there were similar
problems with the servo algorithm on the Celestron Nexstar scops when they
first appeared.
Have they published any details of the networking protocol (I have seen
nothing)?. This would make an external interface possible, and even allow
crude guiding.
I noticed a couple of 'shortfalls' in the database.

Best Wishes

"Richard DeLuca" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Roger Hamlett" wrote:

SNIP_
The main
problems though are with the unit itself. The display is a typical
modern
LCD, using an EL backlight. Unfortunately, such backlights, cannot be
dimmed
very much. The displays themselves tend to 'leak' light at narrow angles
to
the face. To my mind, they should have chosen LED backlighting instead
(allowing the display to be dimmed to practically black), and added a
'rim'
round the display to catch the leakage. Without this, the intensity at
night, is awful. You cannot use the normal solution of a red filter,
because
the colours chosen on the display become unreadable. So a ND filter is
needed instead.
Seperately, the software is pretty good, but some things are very
annoying.
You cannot (for instance), 're-align' on a selected alignment star. Once
an
alignment is made, if you choose any star withing ten degrees of one of
the
selected stars, it refuses to accept it. The old SkySensor offers you
instead, the option to replace the nearest star, and this is a much
better
solution.
At present, it is a nice 'toy', but it needs the autoguider input
working, a
few 'tweaks' to the software, and perhaps an optional 'sleeve', with a
ND
filter to lower the brightness, before it can become a rightful
complement
to the mount hardware itself.
It seems well able to handle it's rated load, and the published figure,
is
if anything 'conservative' compared to the specifications of many
mounts.
However given the long focal length of an SCT, I'd say that the C9.25,
was
just about at the very upper limit of the mount, especially for imaging
(where I am a firm believer in having relatively 'overrated' mounts).


We also have a new Vixen SPHINX mount, and it supports a TV NP101 which
is only about 12 lbs with diagonal and finder. Vixen states a load
capacity of 22 lbs, and I don't doubt that it is an accurate and
conservative figure.

Vixen has received lots of complaints about the brightness of the star
book hand controller. They now have produced a sleeve to dim the star
book, and they are providing them free of charge to all owners.

I generally agree with your other assessments of the Sphinx, and want to
add just one more- not all NGC objects are currently in the database.
That's another problem that I'm sure is easily rectified.

Starry Skies,
Rich
That is very good news about the 'sleeve'.
With devices where the software is upgradeable like this, I am fairly happy
to accept that there will need to be a few 'tweak cycles', on the initial
versions, but do feel that the lack of the autoguider, should have been
fixable very quickly, if there was not some 'deeper' reason preventing it
being implemented. This just 'worries' a little...
I have actually tried the mount loaded close to it's max, and found that
this cured the slight vibration I was seeing with a lighter scope. There may
actually be a 'minimum' weight that works well with the mount!. It may well
be that this vibration is also software 'fixable', there were similar
problems with the servo algorithm on the Celestron Nexstar scops when they
first appeared.
Have they published any details of the networking protocol (I have seen
nothing)?. This would make an external interface possible, and even allow
crude guiding.
I noticed a couple of 'shortfalls' in the database.

Best Wishes

In article O9ddc.87$UE4.34@newsfe1-win,
"Roger Hamlett" wrote:



Have they published any details of the networking protocol (I have seen
nothing)?. This would make an external interface possible, and even allow
crude guiding.
I noticed a couple of 'shortfalls' in the database.

Best Wishes


Sorry Roger,

I hope that most of our questions will be answered soon. One thing I've
found is that Vixen America is listening carefully.

Starry Skies,
Rich

In article O9ddc.87$UE4.34@newsfe1-win,
"Roger Hamlett" wrote:



Have they published any details of the networking protocol (I have seen
nothing)?. This would make an external interface possible, and even allow
crude guiding.
I noticed a couple of 'shortfalls' in the database.

Best Wishes


Sorry Roger,

I hope that most of our questions will be answered soon. One thing I've
found is that Vixen America is listening carefully.

Starry Skies,
Rich