Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Wires through the Paramount?

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan Burnett
    Hi Frank, I use the not-so-special form of the TechFlex material called CleanCut . Don t bother with the hot knife when using CleanCut, besides, there s no
    Message 1 of 22 , Aug 31, 2007
      Hi Frank,

      I use the not-so-special form of the TechFlex material
      called "CleanCut". Don't bother with the hot knife when using
      CleanCut, besides, there's no real good way to use it once you've
      threaded cables through it. There are, as you seen, LOTS of flavors
      and maybe some others that would work better than what I use, but
      since I'm happy with this stuff, I've not experimented further.

      Here's a link to a vendor I've used and shows the specific stuff I
      ordered: https://www.wirecare.com/products.asp?prod=CCP&prodline=ES

      Jonathan
      --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "fccolosimo" <fcc0@...> wrote:
      >
      > Thanks for the tip, Jonathan,
      > I was not sure whether you were suggesting using the sheath inside
      the
      > Paramount channel or for outside routing. Obviously it would work
      for
      > both, but if you use it inside, what diameter did you go with?
      >
      > BTW, I see that partsexpress.com is one of the retailers. They
      have
      > been super good on quick deliveries and even returns in the past,
      so I
      > highly recommend them.
      >
      > Frank
    • howsoft_paul
      Ron, Can you share your recommendations / photos of how you run the wiring on the outside of a Paramount? Thanx, Paul Howard ... shaft. ... wires as ... cables
      Message 2 of 22 , Sep 1, 2007
        Ron,

        Can you share your recommendations / photos of how you run the wiring
        on the outside of a Paramount?

        Thanx,

        Paul Howard

        --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Wodaski - Yahoo" <yahoo@...> wrote:
        >
        > I've had occasions when wires through the mount bind on the internal
        shaft.
        > You can take some precautions to reduce the risk (e.g., support the
        wires as
        > they exit the base of the mount so their weight doesn't pull them tight
        > around the shaft), but in the end, I find that there are ways to run
        cables
        > outside the mount that are non-problematic, so that's what I use for
        remote
        > scopes.
        >
        > Ron W
        >
      • Neil Fleming
        Yes, please! ... www.flemingastrophotography.com Direct from Boston - brilliant diamonds in pea soup
        Message 3 of 22 , Sep 2, 2007
          Yes, please!

          ...Neil

          --- howsoft_paul <howsoft@...> wrote:

          > Ron,
          >
          > Can you share your recommendations / photos of how
          > you run the wiring
          > on the outside of a Paramount?
          >
          > Thanx,
          >
          > Paul Howard
          >
          > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Wodaski -
          > Yahoo" <yahoo@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > I've had occasions when wires through the mount
          > bind on the internal
          > shaft.
          > > You can take some precautions to reduce the risk
          > (e.g., support the
          > wires as
          > > they exit the base of the mount so their weight
          > doesn't pull them tight
          > > around the shaft), but in the end, I find that
          > there are ways to run
          > cables
          > > outside the mount that are non-problematic, so
          > that's what I use for
          > remote
          > > scopes.
          > >
          > > Ron W
          > >
          >
          >
          >


          www.flemingastrophotography.com
          Direct from Boston - brilliant diamonds in pea soup
        • Wodaski - Yahoo
          This is hard to explain - and I don t have any photos. Basic concepts: * The Paramount has a more limited range of motion than some mounts. This is good when
          Message 4 of 22 , Sep 2, 2007
            This is hard to explain - and I don't have any photos.

            Basic concepts:

            * The Paramount has a more limited range of motion than some mounts. This is
            good when draping cables - there is less chance to get things messed up. <G>

            * The key point in the run is where the Dec portion of the mount turns on
            the RA portion. I make a loop here, and fix the two ends, one to the Dec (as
            close to the level where it moves relative to RA) portion, and one to the
            based (ditto). This might have a diameter of 1' or so. There should be
            enough of a loop that it will not stretch to the limit in any direction
            (test!). You wind up with the minimum practical distance between the fixed
            point and the moving point. The fixed point should typically by on the top
            of the fixed portion, toward the South. (The adventurous can replace one or
            more of the existing bolts in the mount with something to guide or attach
            the cables.)

            * The loop should be a bundle of all of the wires involved. The flextech
            stuff talked about recently would be idea for this, but you can use cable
            ties. The goal is to get a fairly stiff bundle of wires that will flex and
            move predictably. Observe what it does; adjust as needed by changing where
            it is fixed, how they cables are bundled, etc.

            * The connection from the fixed portion to the ground is rudimentary. <G>

            An alternative is to go from Dec to RA to ground, but this is unnecessary
            IMO because of the limited range of motion. If you do go that route, go a
            short way down the counterweight shaft, then drape to ground. The range of
            motion is less this way than if you go to the end of the CWT shaft.

            Ron W

            -----Original Message-----
            From: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com] On
            Behalf Of Neil Fleming
            Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 11:57 AM
            To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [ccd-newastro] Re: Wires through the Paramount?

            Yes, please!

            ...Neil

            --- howsoft_paul <howsoft@...> wrote:

            > Ron,
            >
            > Can you share your recommendations / photos of how
            > you run the wiring
            > on the outside of a Paramount?
            >
            > Thanx,
            >
            > Paul Howard
            >
            > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Wodaski -
            > Yahoo" <yahoo@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > I've had occasions when wires through the mount
            > bind on the internal
            > shaft.
            > > You can take some precautions to reduce the risk
            > (e.g., support the
            > wires as
            > > they exit the base of the mount so their weight
            > doesn't pull them tight
            > > around the shaft), but in the end, I find that
            > there are ways to run
            > cables
            > > outside the mount that are non-problematic, so
            > that's what I use for
            > remote
            > > scopes.
            > >
            > > Ron W
            > >
            >
            >
            >


            www.flemingastrophotography.com
            Direct from Boston - brilliant diamonds in pea soup



            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Geof Wingham
            Hi this is the system I use to keep the wires out of harms way on a mobile G-11 Gemini system - you may be able to take some ideas from this and create
            Message 5 of 22 , Sep 2, 2007
              Hi this is the system I use to keep the wires out of harms way on a
              mobile G-11 Gemini system - you may be able to take some ideas from this
              and create something more suitable for yourself.



              http://www.pbase.com/loc46south/equipment



              Regards

              Geof Wingham





              -----Original Message-----
              From: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com]
              On Behalf Of Wodaski - Yahoo
              Sent: Monday, 3 September 2007 2:31 p.m.
              To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] Re: Wires through the Paramount?



              This is hard to explain - and I don't have any photos.

              Basic concepts:

              * The Paramount has a more limited range of motion than some mounts.
              This is
              good when draping cables - there is less chance to get things messed up.
              <G>

              * The key point in the run is where the Dec portion of the mount turns
              on
              the RA portion. I make a loop here, and fix the two ends, one to the Dec
              (as
              close to the level where it moves relative to RA) portion, and one to
              the
              based (ditto). This might have a diameter of 1' or so. There should be
              enough of a loop that it will not stretch to the limit in any direction
              (test!). You wind up with the minimum practical distance between the
              fixed
              point and the moving point. The fixed point should typically by on the
              top
              of the fixed portion, toward the South. (The adventurous can replace one
              or
              more of the existing bolts in the mount with something to guide or
              attach
              the cables.)

              * The loop should be a bundle of all of the wires involved. The flextech
              stuff talked about recently would be idea for this, but you can use
              cable
              ties. The goal is to get a fairly stiff bundle of wires that will flex
              and
              move predictably. Observe what it does; adjust as needed by changing
              where
              it is fixed, how they cables are bundled, etc.

              * The connection from the fixed portion to the ground is rudimentary.
              <G>

              An alternative is to go from Dec to RA to ground, but this is
              unnecessary
              IMO because of the limited range of motion. If you do go that route, go
              a
              short way down the counterweight shaft, then drape to ground. The range
              of
              motion is less this way than if you go to the end of the CWT shaft.

              Ron W

              -----Original Message-----
              From: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
              yahoogroups.com [mailto:ccd-newastro@
              <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of Neil Fleming
              Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 11:57 AM
              To: ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
              yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [ccd-newastro] Re: Wires through the Paramount?

              Yes, please!

              ...Neil

              --- howsoft_paul <howsoft@mindspring. <mailto:howsoft%40mindspring.com>
              com> wrote:

              > Ron,
              >
              > Can you share your recommendations / photos of how
              > you run the wiring
              > on the outside of a Paramount?
              >
              > Thanx,
              >
              > Paul Howard
              >
              > --- In ccd-newastro@ <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
              yahoogroups.com, "Wodaski -
              > Yahoo" <yahoo@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > I've had occasions when wires through the mount
              > bind on the internal
              > shaft.
              > > You can take some precautions to reduce the risk
              > (e.g., support the
              > wires as
              > > they exit the base of the mount so their weight
              > doesn't pull them tight
              > > around the shaft), but in the end, I find that
              > there are ways to run
              > cables
              > > outside the mount that are non-problematic, so
              > that's what I use for
              > remote
              > > scopes.
              > >
              > > Ron W
              > >
              >
              >
              >

              www.flemingastrophotography.com
              Direct from Boston - brilliant diamonds in pea soup

              Yahoo! Groups Links





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • howsoft_paul
              Ron, Thanx for the explanation. It made a lot of sense after I went out and stared at the mount for a while. One further question - do you actually remove
              Message 6 of 22 , Sep 4, 2007
                Ron,

                Thanx for the explanation. It made a lot of sense after I went out
                and stared at the mount for a while. One further question - do you
                actually remove the wires that are already run through the mount (the
                wire going up to the versaplates connectors)? Or just not add any
                additional wires

                Thanx,

                Paul

                --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Wodaski - Yahoo" <yahoo@...> wrote:
                >
                > This is hard to explain - and I don't have any photos.
                >
                > Basic concepts:
                >
                > * The Paramount has a more limited range of motion than some mounts.
                This is
                > good when draping cables - there is less chance to get things messed
                up. <G>
                >
                > * The key point in the run is where the Dec portion of the mount
                turns on
                > the RA portion. I make a loop here, and fix the two ends, one to the
                Dec (as
                > close to the level where it moves relative to RA) portion, and one
                to the
                > based (ditto). This might have a diameter of 1' or so. There should be
                > enough of a loop that it will not stretch to the limit in any direction
                > (test!). You wind up with the minimum practical distance between the
                fixed
                > point and the moving point. The fixed point should typically by on
                the top
                > of the fixed portion, toward the South. (The adventurous can replace
                one or
                > more of the existing bolts in the mount with something to guide or
                attach
                > the cables.)
                >
                > * The loop should be a bundle of all of the wires involved. The flextech
                > stuff talked about recently would be idea for this, but you can use
                cable
                > ties. The goal is to get a fairly stiff bundle of wires that will
                flex and
                > move predictably. Observe what it does; adjust as needed by changing
                where
                > it is fixed, how they cables are bundled, etc.
                >
                > * The connection from the fixed portion to the ground is
                rudimentary. <G>
                >
                > An alternative is to go from Dec to RA to ground, but this is
                unnecessary
                > IMO because of the limited range of motion. If you do go that route,
                go a
                > short way down the counterweight shaft, then drape to ground. The
                range of
                > motion is less this way than if you go to the end of the CWT shaft.
                >
                > Ron W
                >
              • Wodaski - Yahoo
                I don t remove those wires, no. They are fairly minor - and they don t extend out the back, which is where the weight really comes from to make them overly
                Message 7 of 22 , Sep 4, 2007
                  I don't remove those wires, no. They are fairly minor - and they don't
                  extend out the back, which is where the weight really comes from to make
                  them overly tight.

                  Ron

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com] On
                  Behalf Of howsoft_paul
                  Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:20 PM
                  To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: Wires through the Paramount?

                  Ron,

                  Thanx for the explanation. It made a lot of sense after I went out
                  and stared at the mount for a while. One further question - do you
                  actually remove the wires that are already run through the mount (the
                  wire going up to the versaplates connectors)? Or just not add any
                  additional wires

                  Thanx,

                  Paul

                  --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Wodaski - Yahoo" <yahoo@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > This is hard to explain - and I don't have any photos.
                  >
                  > Basic concepts:
                  >
                  > * The Paramount has a more limited range of motion than some mounts.
                  This is
                  > good when draping cables - there is less chance to get things messed
                  up. <G>
                  >
                  > * The key point in the run is where the Dec portion of the mount
                  turns on
                  > the RA portion. I make a loop here, and fix the two ends, one to the
                  Dec (as
                  > close to the level where it moves relative to RA) portion, and one
                  to the
                  > based (ditto). This might have a diameter of 1' or so. There should be
                  > enough of a loop that it will not stretch to the limit in any direction
                  > (test!). You wind up with the minimum practical distance between the
                  fixed
                  > point and the moving point. The fixed point should typically by on
                  the top
                  > of the fixed portion, toward the South. (The adventurous can replace
                  one or
                  > more of the existing bolts in the mount with something to guide or
                  attach
                  > the cables.)
                  >
                  > * The loop should be a bundle of all of the wires involved. The flextech
                  > stuff talked about recently would be idea for this, but you can use
                  cable
                  > ties. The goal is to get a fairly stiff bundle of wires that will
                  flex and
                  > move predictably. Observe what it does; adjust as needed by changing
                  where
                  > it is fixed, how they cables are bundled, etc.
                  >
                  > * The connection from the fixed portion to the ground is
                  rudimentary. <G>
                  >
                  > An alternative is to go from Dec to RA to ground, but this is
                  unnecessary
                  > IMO because of the limited range of motion. If you do go that route,
                  go a
                  > short way down the counterweight shaft, then drape to ground. The
                  range of
                  > motion is less this way than if you go to the end of the CWT shaft.
                  >
                  > Ron W
                  >




                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                • howsoft_paul
                  Ron, Thanx. It sound like you think the weight of the wires hanging out the back is a major contributor to the issue. Do you suppose that if the weight
                  Message 8 of 22 , Sep 5, 2007
                    Ron,

                    Thanx. It sound like you think the weight of the wires hanging out
                    the back is a major contributor to the issue. Do you suppose that if
                    the weight issue is properly taken care of that there might be minimal
                    issue with running wires through the mount? What I've done is put a
                    generous bend as they leave the mount and then anchored the bundle at
                    the base of the mount. The bend allows for slight back and forth of
                    the bundle as the mount turns and the anchoring keeps the run to the
                    ground from pulling on the bundles.

                    See file folder Phoward - Supporting wires through Paramount

                    Thanx,

                    Paul

                    --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Wodaski - Yahoo" <yahoo@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I don't remove those wires, no. They are fairly minor - and they don't
                    > extend out the back, which is where the weight really comes from to make
                    > them overly tight.
                    >
                    > Ron
                    >
                  • Wodaski - Yahoo
                    What determines if that will work....is whether it works! I have seen cases where taking the weight off the wires made things OK, and cases where it didn t.
                    Message 9 of 22 , Sep 5, 2007
                      What determines if that will work....is whether it works! I have seen cases
                      where taking the weight off the wires made things OK, and cases where it
                      didn't.

                      The only way to know for sure is to try it.

                      Ron W

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com] On
                      Behalf Of howsoft_paul
                      Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:37 AM
                      To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: Wires through the Paramount?

                      Ron,

                      Thanx. It sound like you think the weight of the wires hanging out
                      the back is a major contributor to the issue. Do you suppose that if
                      the weight issue is properly taken care of that there might be minimal
                      issue with running wires through the mount? What I've done is put a
                      generous bend as they leave the mount and then anchored the bundle at
                      the base of the mount. The bend allows for slight back and forth of
                      the bundle as the mount turns and the anchoring keeps the run to the
                      ground from pulling on the bundles.

                      See file folder Phoward - Supporting wires through Paramount

                      Thanx,

                      Paul

                      --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Wodaski - Yahoo" <yahoo@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I don't remove those wires, no. They are fairly minor - and they don't
                      > extend out the back, which is where the weight really comes from to make
                      > them overly tight.
                      >
                      > Ron
                      >




                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • howsoft_paul
                      Thanx ... seen cases
                      Message 10 of 22 , Sep 6, 2007
                        Thanx

                        --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Wodaski - Yahoo" <yahoo@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > What determines if that will work....is whether it works! I have
                        seen cases
                        > where taking the weight off the wires made things OK, and cases where it
                        > didn't.
                        >
                        > The only way to know for sure is to try it.
                        >
                        > Ron W
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.