w0mbat

I agree. If you look back through the history of this forum you will find that this has been a continuing frustration for years. Promises have been made by ASA but none have been kept. Frankly I think most of us have given up hoping that proper manuals will ever be produced. I just do not understand this. No one doubts the quality of ASA hardware. But they are prepared to have their reputation damaged by inadequate documentation and communication with users. This has already happened. Some of the comments about ASA in general astronomy forums are simply scathing. In my view for a company to behave like this in such a small world as the astronomy community is utterly stupid and short sighted. Ian

Actually you do not need an internet connection at all to run Teamviewer. I have Cat6 network cables running from my house to the observatory. Teamviewer has a setting to allow "LAN connections only". With a gigabit LAN connection it works so fast that you can't even tell that you are actually operating a remote computer! Also the image quality is excellent. Ian

Thanks Robert. As a DDM60Pro user who probably would not spend more to upgrade I would be very unhappy if I did not feel I was receiving excellent software support and maintenance. Ian

I'll second that. Ian

Thanks George and Mark. We now have a consistent basis from which to discuss this issue. Ian

Hi Waldemar, I agree that your solution is the ideal way to achieve "perfect" radial balance. However in the case of larger Newtonian apertures the weight necessary to achieve this becomes very large and therefore the moments of inertia may become a concern especially on a DDM60. As I have said I have already constructed and tested a counterweight system mounted on top of the tube rings. With this I can achieve radial balance in all OTA positions when rolling on level rails. However this adds around three kilograms spaced about 100mm above the top of the tube rings. This then will of course mean adding a similar weight to the counterweight bar. It was at this point I became concerned about the added inertia this involved and started asking questions in this thread. I could try this system back on the mount but my inexperience makes me nervous about this. I would appreciate any comments as to whether my concerns are justified. As you have seen other users say full radial balance is not necessary as long as the focuser is exactly aligned with the counterweight bar and then any lateral imbalance is corrected with small weights to make the focuser assembly weight symmetrical around the Dec axis plane. The steep learning curve continues! Regards and thanks Ian

Thanks so much to you all for your help. It seems to me that the source of my confusion is, as is often the case I find, terminology and what a word means to different people. There are an infinite number of radii in a circle so, to me, radial balance means balanced across all radial directions such that a round object could be placed in any position on a level surface and not roll. It seems clear to me now that this is not the meaning being used in most of these discussions. I think Mark has used the correct term to describe what it seems is necessary.......lateral balance. So after digesting all that has been written the understanding I have reached is as Mark says:- Thanks again to you all. I just wish ASA would get it's act together and publish manuals that properly explain important issues such as this to all it's customers. Regards Ian

Thanks Waldemar. But I am still left with the questions I asked above. What is meant by radial balancing? Do you think that we should be using your rolling method to achieve radial balance in all positions? Or is George's method sufficient which (as far as I understand it) places the imbalance in the Dec plane and just corrects for asymmetries of weight around the Dec axis plane? I will do whatever is necessary. I just can't get a direct answer as to which method will work best for all position good balance in a permanent setup. Ian

Hi George, Yes I have seen those threads. In fact reading the various posts about balancing and the various methods used is probably the source of my uncertainty. For instance, in following your thread about suspending the OTA on a wire I was initially puzzled as it seemed to me that your method would be completely insensitive to any radial imbalance in the vertical direction. That is why I am asking. Are you saying that as long as any radial imbalance in the OTA is symmetrical about the Dec axis plane that it does not matter and will have no negative effect on the mount operation????? If that is so then all is well and I will not have to add a lot of weight. If that is not so then I would have to add several kilograms spaced around 100mm from the top of the tube rings to achieve full 360 degree radial balance. The ASA OK3 focuser with Wynne corrector inside and a camera attached is very heavy. I have spent a lot of time fiddling with balance. Similarly to others I have never been able to achieve good results with the Autoslew balance tool in all positions. I have assumed that it was OTA radial imbalance that was the source of this problem. I am trying to correct that. So to eliminate the possibility that I am misreading/misinterpreting other people's language or diagrams I am after a simple direct statement. Do I have to achieve full 360 degree radial balance of the OTA such that it would sit balanced in any position on a level plane? Or is it enough to place the focuser centrally in the Dec axis plane and then correct for any remaining asymmetries about the Dec axis plane with small weights? Sorry if I am slow but there are so many seemingly contradictory statements made about balance that I would like to be certain. Of course, if there were comprehensive manuals for ASA products I would not need to be asking these questions! Regards Ian

Hi, As I have a permanent setup my objective is to achieve good balance in all positions. I have my OTA (ASA N10) off the mount (DDM60 Pro) to investigate the radial balance of the OTA. There is a HUGE radial imbalance of several kilograms (Ok3 plus corrector plus camera). I have read this thread over and over and I am still not convinced that I really understand. Are we saying that I do not have to fully balance the OTA radially as long as the remaining imbalance is centred and symmetrical about the plane of the Dec axis? In other words, if I were to place the OTA on horizontal bars with the focuser pointing down and add small weights to correct the asymmetries until the focuser is perfectly vertical and then ensure the focuser centre line is on the plane of the Dec axis then that is all I need to do? I have already constructed a counterweight system to fully radially balance the OTA (which is working) but I am concerned about the weight it adds and even more about how far that extra weight is from the mount. And then I would have to add even more to the RA weights. So it is starting to seem like a bad idea to radially balance the OTA in all positions when the imbalance is so large. So could someone please confirm that fully radially balancing the OTA is actually unnecessary as long as there is no imbalance about the plane of the Dec axis and that the large remaining imbalance in the Dec axis plane will not matter when trying to achieve good mount balance in all sky positions? Thank you, Ian

Thanks Mark and Bernard. My main concern was not knowing whether any particular solvents or cleaners could affect the lens coatings. Mark... Had a look at the Visible Dust site. Are their products available in Australia or did you order direct? A quick google did not find me local suppliers. Ian

Hi, A small spider got into the camera end of my 3" Wynne corrector and has left small spots on the lens surface. Can anyone suggest the best/safest way to clean the lens surface? Regards to all, Ian

My impression had been that the issues with Autoslew were to be solved with a new software package. If Autoslew is to be brought into a fully operational well documented state with continuing support AND there is to be a new software release as well, then that is different. My fear was that Autoslew would be abandoned and existing owners would have to pay to get the new software even though the software they had already purchased had not really been brought up to an acceptable standard. Ian

Is it being seriously suggested that existing owners should PAY for this new "software solution"???? I cannot believe what I am seeing! Ian

While I appreciate the reply from Mr Weinzinger I have to say that it has left me more confused and concerned. Is ASA saying they are moving in a new direction with both hardware and software? Where does this leave current owners? Am I correctly inferring that there will be new hardware using the new software and that old hardware will need to use the "old" software???? And there is still the issue with why all this is taking so long with various past promises just ignored! More explanations are definitely needed! Ian

Hi all, I have been resisting starting a similar thread to this for some time. I agree that it is the silence from ASA that is really annoying. People are generally tolerant of problems as long as they are kept informed. Come on ASA! Pay your existing customer base the respect it deserves by bringing us up to date and keeping us there! Regards Ian

The end of the year is nearly here and the last news update was on the 16th of August. How are the software and manual updates going? Regards Ian

Thank you. Ian

Can't match your "frozen" telescope but here are some pictures of my ASA N10 mounted on DDM60 Pro in my Sirius 2.3 metre observatory. A Canon 60Da DSLR is mounted on the focuser. It is all very close to operational but there always seems to be just one more issue to resolve! Ian

Members (especially those of us in the Southern Hemisphere) may be interested to know that I wrote to Diffraction Limited about my dome slaving concerns. I was amazed when they answered that they are not certain of how to set dome slaving parameters in my circumstances! There only suggestion was essentially to fiddle with settings until I find what works best. This seems to tie in with your experience Tim. Ian

Nigel, Your work is very impressive! It has surprised me just how complex and time consuming designing, building and commissioning a remote controlled observatory is. And I am only working over a 60 metre distance! I have just checked and it is 16 months since I took delivery of my DDM60 Pro and N10 and I have not taken a serious image yet! All of the same delays that you mention. And the additional worry that equipment warranties will run out before I have seriously used the gear. At least you live in the Northern Hemisphere. Sometimes we southerners have additional issues to deal with. I have just had Diffraction Limited tell me that they are not certain how to set up dome slaving in the Southern Hemisphere and it appears to me that there may even be a problem with the dome slaving algorithm they use when it is operated in the south! Well done Nigel! Ian

Hi Tim, The offset I am referring to is the North South offset of the pivot point within the dome. As my pier is central there is an offset introduced by the mount itself.....around 85mm. I have found just one reference to this in another forum from a southern hemisphere person who stated that the sign of this offset needed to be reversed for the southern hemisphere, that is, a south offset becomes positive rather than negative as it is in the northern hemisphere. This seems to make sense to me and my slaving is certainly better when I enter a positive number. I am a bit confused by your reference to "never just relied on Maxdome2 by itself to do this". I use Ascom Dome Control which I thought was part of the Ascom package although written by Diffraction Ltd. My planetarium software is C2A. Slew commands from C2A are routed through Ascom Dome Control to Autoslew. I do not use POTH. Everything works fine except that the slit positioning is not always accurate. I also have MaximDL and the slaving parameters required in it are exactly the same as in Ascom Dome Control. MaximDL, Ascom Dome Conrol and Maxdome are all from Diffraction Ltd. Are you implying that there is an issue with their dome control? Thanks for your input. Ian

Hi all, I am having a frustrating time with slaving my dome. I have a Sirius 2.3 metre observatory which has Maxdome 11 dome control. The pier is centred in the observatory. I have repeatedly carefully measured all the distances required in Ascom Dome Control but cannot get accurate slit position in all directions. One difficulty is the North South pivot point offset. The manual says that a north offset is positive and south negative. My belief is that this should be reversed for the southern hemisphere as the mount is facing south. I asked Diffraction Ltd this and they answered that it stays the same. But if I use N+ and S- it just doesn't work properly. If I make the pivot point offset positive for a southerly offset (which is what I have due to having the DDM60 mounted on a central pier) then it is much closer but still not good enough. By increasing the pivot point southerly offset figure to around twice the actual measured offset I then get good slit position everywhere EXCEPT close to the zenith. I have been checking the aiming by shining a laser into the DSLR viewfinder on my N10 astrograph which gives a nice image of the main mirror on the inside of the dome slit cover. As far as I can see this should give me an accurate indication of the telescope field of view. I realise this is probably an issue that it will be difficult to help with. But I have run out of ideas and have wasted heaps of time on this and was hoping someone might give me a new idea. I would particularly like comments on whether you agree with my assessment of the correct sign for North South pivot point offset in the Southern hemisphere. Thank you, Regards Ian

Hi Josch, I wonder why this has not happened. What is there to loose? It will either turn out to be used/useful or not. Why not give it a go? So I would like to suggest to the forum administrators that they add a "science applications" section and then we will see what happens. Ian

Waldemar, I have come up with nothing useful after looking at my laptop. The driver version in use is 1.2.0.8 As Robert says this should not happen. Windows is supposed to identify each device and assign the same com port whenever it is reconnected. Ian