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

Re: NGCMAX Encoder Resolution / Recommendations /Thanks

Expand Messages
  • delproposto
    ... I would like to thank all who contributed input to my inquiry on High-resolution encoders. Yesterday evening the 8194 encoders arrived and were installed.
    Message 1 of 22 , Aug 1, 2002
      --- In sct-user@y..., "Chris Peterson" <clp@a...> wrote:
      I would like to thank all who contributed input to my inquiry on
      High-resolution encoders.

      Yesterday evening the 8194 encoders arrived and were installed. The
      high-resolution encoders GREATLY improved the telescopes pointing and
      was subsequently able to put 9 out of 10 objects in the CCDCameras
      field of view.

      I would also like to note that for the alignment stars process I also
      use the CCDCamera (ST-7)

      Technical Notes:
      Ultima 11 PEC
      8000 encoders both axis.
      NGCMax 3.52

      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      > The situation is further confounded by the fact that very few 8196
      count encoders actually output a pulse every 2.3 arc minutes as you
      might expect. The only thing you really know for sure is that every
      fourth pulse is 9.4 arc minutes apart (which is, in reality, every
      rising edge on a single channel.) The intermediate pulses can have
      quite large position errors.
      >
      > Chris
      >
      > _________________
      > Chris Peterson
      > http://www.cloudbait.com
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Michael P." <astromich@n...>
      > To: <sct-user@y...>
      > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:08 PM
      > Subject: Re: [sct-user] Re: NGCMAX Encoder Resolution / Recommendations
      >
      >
      > > Sorry Greg,
      > >
      > > I try to keep my messages short,,,
      > > "I think" the 8000 step encoder will improve a " mechanically
      perfect "
      > > scope
      > > ,,but not considerably...
    • P T Chambers
      Hi Where did you order the encoders?? SInce I have a similar setup, I am interested. ... Phil Chambers [ptchamb@svpal.org] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)
      Message 2 of 22 , Aug 1, 2002
        Hi
        Where did you order the encoders?? SInce I have a similar setup, I am
        interested.

        ---------
        Phil Chambers [ptchamb@...] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)

        On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, delproposto wrote:

        > --- In sct-user@y..., "Chris Peterson" <clp@a...> wrote:
        > I would like to thank all who contributed input to my inquiry on
        > High-resolution encoders.
        >
        > Yesterday evening the 8194 encoders arrived and were installed. The
        > high-resolution encoders GREATLY improved the telescopes pointing and
        > was subsequently able to put 9 out of 10 objects in the CCDCameras
        > field of view.
        >
        > I would also like to note that for the alignment stars process I also
        > use the CCDCamera (ST-7)
        >
        > Technical Notes:
        > Ultima 11 PEC
        > 8000 encoders both axis.
        > NGCMax 3.52
        >
        > -------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > > The situation is further confounded by the fact that very few 8196
        > count encoders actually output a pulse every 2.3 arc minutes as you
        > might expect. The only thing you really know for sure is that every
        > fourth pulse is 9.4 arc minutes apart (which is, in reality, every
        > rising edge on a single channel.) The intermediate pulses can have
        > quite large position errors.
        > >
        > > Chris
        > >
        > > _________________
        > > Chris Peterson
        > > http://www.cloudbait.com
        > >
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: "Michael P." <astromich@n...>
        > > To: <sct-user@y...>
        > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:08 PM
        > > Subject: Re: [sct-user] Re: NGCMAX Encoder Resolution / Recommendations
        > >
        > >
        > > > Sorry Greg,
        > > >
        > > > I try to keep my messages short,,,
        > > > "I think" the 8000 step encoder will improve a " mechanically
        > perfect "
        > > > scope
        > > > ,,but not considerably...
        >
        >
        >
        > Visit the sct-user home page at:
        >
        >
        >
        > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      • gnowellsct
        Mr Chambers: Since you are handy with tools, you will want to check out the usdigital.com web site. Gearing varies, but my particular story was this: I had
        Message 3 of 22 , Aug 1, 2002
          Mr Chambers:
          Since you are handy with tools, you will want to check out the
          usdigital.com web site.

          Gearing varies, but my particular story was this: I had Losmandy
          default encoders, US digital 512s. (there are pix on the web site,
          so you can find what you have). I was geared 8:1 which led to 4096.

          To get to 8192 and keep the same indestructible (I hope) Losmandy
          gears, I bought the US Digital 1024s.

          I did something that Mr Losmandy did not. I bought the water
          resistant (sealed) 1024s that cost something like $20-$30 more
          apiece. If you're going to have all this stuff apart, you might as
          well do it right. I have a suspicion though that the sealed encoders
          are just encoders with some silicone caulk squirted into the exposed
          hole. You could save some money, but why mess with OEM.

          Odds are you need a 1024 encoder, but if your gearing is different,
          so may your needs.

          regards,
          Greg Nowell





          --- In sct-user@y..., P T Chambers <ptchamb@s...> wrote:
          > Hi
          > Where did you order the encoders?? SInce I have a similar setup, I
          am
          > interested.
          >
          > ---------
          > Phil Chambers [ptchamb@s...] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)
          >
          > On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, delproposto wrote:
          >
          > > --- In sct-user@y..., "Chris Peterson" <clp@a...> wrote:
          > > I would like to thank all who contributed input to my inquiry on
          > > High-resolution encoders.
          > >
          > > Yesterday evening the 8194 encoders arrived and were installed.
          The
          > > high-resolution encoders GREATLY improved the telescopes pointing
          and
          > > was subsequently able to put 9 out of 10 objects in the CCDCameras
          > > field of view.
          > >
          > > I would also like to note that for the alignment stars process I
          also
          > > use the CCDCamera (ST-7)
          > >
          > > Technical Notes:
          > > Ultima 11 PEC
          > > 8000 encoders both axis.
          > > NGCMax 3.52
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
          -
          > >
          > > > The situation is further confounded by the fact that very few
          8196
          > > count encoders actually output a pulse every 2.3 arc minutes as
          you
          > > might expect. The only thing you really know for sure is that
          every
          > > fourth pulse is 9.4 arc minutes apart (which is, in reality, every
          > > rising edge on a single channel.) The intermediate pulses can have
          > > quite large position errors.
          > > >
          > > > Chris
          > > >
          > > > _________________
          > > > Chris Peterson
          > > > http://www.cloudbait.com
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > > From: "Michael P." <astromich@n...>
          > > > To: <sct-user@y...>
          > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:08 PM
          > > > Subject: Re: [sct-user] Re: NGCMAX Encoder Resolution /
          Recommendations
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > > Sorry Greg,
          > > > >
          > > > > I try to keep my messages short,,,
          > > > > "I think" the 8000 step encoder will improve a " mechanically
          > > perfect "
          > > > > scope
          > > > > ,,but not considerably...
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Visit the sct-user home page at:
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          > >
        • gnowellsct
          Mr Peters: If you have setup at 8194 (FOUR) rather than 8192 (TWO) than you will have a VERY slight error that is easily correctable. The progression sequence
          Message 4 of 22 , Aug 1, 2002
            Mr Peters:
            If you have setup at 8194 (FOUR) rather than 8192 (TWO) than you will
            have a VERY slight error that is easily correctable. The progression
            sequence is on multiples of 2,
            2
            ...
            256
            512
            1024
            2048
            4096
            8192

            You may wish to double check your settings.

            regards,
            Greg Nowell
            (your post said 8194 [FOUR])
          • lal_truckee
            ... ?8:1 gearing?? Did you mean 512s providing 2048 by quadrature, geared 2:1 resulting in 4096?
            Message 5 of 22 , Aug 1, 2002
              --- In sct-user@y..., "gnowellsct" <gnowell@n...> wrote:
              > Mr Chambers:
              > Since you are handy with tools, you will want to check out the
              > usdigital.com web site.
              >
              > Gearing varies, but my particular story was this: I had Losmandy
              > default encoders, US digital 512s. (there are pix on the web site,
              > so you can find what you have). I was geared 8:1 which led to 4096.
              >

              ?8:1 gearing??
              Did you mean 512s providing 2048 by quadrature, geared 2:1 resulting
              in 4096?
            • gnowellsct
              Er, sure. -gn.
              Message 6 of 22 , Aug 1, 2002
                Er, sure. -gn.

                --- In sct-user@y..., "lal_truckee" <lal_truckee@y...> wrote:

                > ?8:1 gearing??
                > Did you mean 512s providing 2048 by quadrature, geared 2:1 resulting
                > in 4096?
              • P T Chambers
                Yes, my JMI-max setup has 4096 and 2024. The 2k is geared at 2 to one or so and is in RA. The Dec is 1 to 1 at 4k. So the 8ks double the dec res and quad the
                Message 7 of 22 , Aug 1, 2002
                  Yes, my JMI-max setup has 4096 and 2024. The 2k is geared at 2 to one or
                  so and is in RA. The Dec is 1 to 1 at 4k.

                  So the 8ks double the dec res and quad the RA. The RA is currently 7min
                  per and with a + - error of a tick or two, is a 3rd of a degree. Not good
                  enough.

                  ---------
                  Phil Chambers [ptchamb@...] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)

                  On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, gnowellsct wrote:

                  > Mr Chambers:
                  > Since you are handy with tools, you will want to check out the
                  > usdigital.com web site.
                  >
                  > Gearing varies, but my particular story was this: I had Losmandy
                  > default encoders, US digital 512s. (there are pix on the web site,
                  > so you can find what you have). I was geared 8:1 which led to 4096.
                  >
                  > To get to 8192 and keep the same indestructible (I hope) Losmandy
                  > gears, I bought the US Digital 1024s.
                  >
                  > I did something that Mr Losmandy did not. I bought the water
                  > resistant (sealed) 1024s that cost something like $20-$30 more
                  > apiece. If you're going to have all this stuff apart, you might as
                  > well do it right. I have a suspicion though that the sealed encoders
                  > are just encoders with some silicone caulk squirted into the exposed
                  > hole. You could save some money, but why mess with OEM.
                  >
                  > Odds are you need a 1024 encoder, but if your gearing is different,
                  > so may your needs.
                  >
                  > regards,
                  > Greg Nowell
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In sct-user@y..., P T Chambers <ptchamb@s...> wrote:
                  > > Hi
                  > > Where did you order the encoders?? SInce I have a similar setup, I
                  > am
                  > > interested.
                  > >
                  > > ---------
                  > > Phil Chambers [ptchamb@s...] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)
                  > >
                  > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, delproposto wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > --- In sct-user@y..., "Chris Peterson" <clp@a...> wrote:
                  > > > I would like to thank all who contributed input to my inquiry on
                  > > > High-resolution encoders.
                  > > >
                  > > > Yesterday evening the 8194 encoders arrived and were installed.
                  > The
                  > > > high-resolution encoders GREATLY improved the telescopes pointing
                  > and
                  > > > was subsequently able to put 9 out of 10 objects in the CCDCameras
                  > > > field of view.
                  > > >
                  > > > I would also like to note that for the alignment stars process I
                  > also
                  > > > use the CCDCamera (ST-7)
                  > > >
                  > > > Technical Notes:
                  > > > Ultima 11 PEC
                  > > > 8000 encoders both axis.
                  > > > NGCMax 3.52
                  > > >
                  > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > -
                  > > >
                  > > > > The situation is further confounded by the fact that very few
                  > 8196
                  > > > count encoders actually output a pulse every 2.3 arc minutes as
                  > you
                  > > > might expect. The only thing you really know for sure is that
                  > every
                  > > > fourth pulse is 9.4 arc minutes apart (which is, in reality, every
                  > > > rising edge on a single channel.) The intermediate pulses can have
                  > > > quite large position errors.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Chris
                  > > > >
                  > > > > _________________
                  > > > > Chris Peterson
                  > > > > http://www.cloudbait.com
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > > > From: "Michael P." <astromich@n...>
                  > > > > To: <sct-user@y...>
                  > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:08 PM
                  > > > > Subject: Re: [sct-user] Re: NGCMAX Encoder Resolution /
                  > Recommendations
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > > Sorry Greg,
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > I try to keep my messages short,,,
                  > > > > > "I think" the 8000 step encoder will improve a " mechanically
                  > > > perfect "
                  > > > > > scope
                  > > > > > ,,but not considerably...
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Visit the sct-user home page at:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
                  > > >
                  > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Visit the sct-user home page at:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • P T Chambers
                  Hi But when gearing is involved, the ratio may not be exact. My 2024 encoder multiplied by approx 2 comes out 4021 or so. I had to make the Max count ticks
                  Message 8 of 22 , Aug 1, 2002
                    Hi
                    But when gearing is involved, the ratio may not be exact. My 2024 encoder
                    multiplied by approx 2 comes out 4021 or so. I had to make the Max count
                    ticks and rotate the RA one exact turn to get the RA to work right.

                    ---------
                    Phil Chambers [ptchamb@...] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)

                    On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, gnowellsct wrote:

                    > Mr Peters:
                    > If you have setup at 8194 (FOUR) rather than 8192 (TWO) than you will
                    > have a VERY slight error that is easily correctable. The progression
                    > sequence is on multiples of 2,
                    > 2
                    > ...
                    > 256
                    > 512
                    > 1024
                    > 2048
                    > 4096
                    > 8192
                    >
                    > You may wish to double check your settings.
                    >
                    > regards,
                    > Greg Nowell
                    > (your post said 8194 [FOUR])
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Visit the sct-user home page at:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • delproposto
                    ... Encoders are from JMI. Best, Dan ... Recommendations ... http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    Message 9 of 22 , Aug 1, 2002
                      --- In sct-user@y..., P T Chambers <ptchamb@s...> wrote:

                      Encoders are from JMI.

                      Best,
                      Dan



                      > Hi
                      > Where did you order the encoders?? SInce I have a similar setup, I am
                      > interested.
                      >
                      > ---------
                      > Phil Chambers [ptchamb@s...] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)
                      >
                      > On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, delproposto wrote:
                      >
                      > > --- In sct-user@y..., "Chris Peterson" <clp@a...> wrote:
                      > > I would like to thank all who contributed input to my inquiry on
                      > > High-resolution encoders.
                      > >
                      > > Yesterday evening the 8194 encoders arrived and were installed. The
                      > > high-resolution encoders GREATLY improved the telescopes pointing and
                      > > was subsequently able to put 9 out of 10 objects in the CCDCameras
                      > > field of view.
                      > >
                      > > I would also like to note that for the alignment stars process I also
                      > > use the CCDCamera (ST-7)
                      > >
                      > > Technical Notes:
                      > > Ultima 11 PEC
                      > > 8000 encoders both axis.
                      > > NGCMax 3.52
                      > >
                      > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                      > >
                      > > > The situation is further confounded by the fact that very few 8196
                      > > count encoders actually output a pulse every 2.3 arc minutes as you
                      > > might expect. The only thing you really know for sure is that every
                      > > fourth pulse is 9.4 arc minutes apart (which is, in reality, every
                      > > rising edge on a single channel.) The intermediate pulses can have
                      > > quite large position errors.
                      > > >
                      > > > Chris
                      > > >
                      > > > _________________
                      > > > Chris Peterson
                      > > > http://www.cloudbait.com
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > > From: "Michael P." <astromich@n...>
                      > > > To: <sct-user@y...>
                      > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:08 PM
                      > > > Subject: Re: [sct-user] Re: NGCMAX Encoder Resolution /
                      Recommendations
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > > Sorry Greg,
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I try to keep my messages short,,,
                      > > > > "I think" the 8000 step encoder will improve a " mechanically
                      > > perfect "
                      > > > > scope
                      > > > > ,,but not considerably...
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Visit the sct-user home page at:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
                      > >
                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                    • P T Chambers
                      Hi My amazingly strong dislike of anything Micro$oft prevents me from using their website. My Macs with netscape either get blank or incomplete pages. No
                      Message 10 of 22 , Aug 2, 2002
                        Hi
                        My amazingly strong dislike of anything Micro$oft prevents me from using
                        their website. My Macs with netscape either get blank or incomplete
                        pages. No great loss since they obviously use MS to create it.

                        However, I think that I have found a different source anyway. Thanks.

                        ---------
                        Phil Chambers [ptchamb@...] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)

                        On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, gnowellsct wrote:

                        > Mr Chambers:
                        > Since you are handy with tools, you will want to check out the
                        > usdigital.com web site.
                        >
                        > Gearing varies, but my particular story was this: I had Losmandy
                        > default encoders, US digital 512s. (there are pix on the web site,
                        > so you can find what you have). I was geared 8:1 which led to 4096.
                        >
                        > To get to 8192 and keep the same indestructible (I hope) Losmandy
                        > gears, I bought the US Digital 1024s.
                        >
                        > I did something that Mr Losmandy did not. I bought the water
                        > resistant (sealed) 1024s that cost something like $20-$30 more
                        > apiece. If you're going to have all this stuff apart, you might as
                        > well do it right. I have a suspicion though that the sealed encoders
                        > are just encoders with some silicone caulk squirted into the exposed
                        > hole. You could save some money, but why mess with OEM.
                        >
                        > Odds are you need a 1024 encoder, but if your gearing is different,
                        > so may your needs.
                        >
                        > regards,
                        > Greg Nowell
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In sct-user@y..., P T Chambers <ptchamb@s...> wrote:
                        > > Hi
                        > > Where did you order the encoders?? SInce I have a similar setup, I
                        > am
                        > > interested.
                        > >
                        > > ---------
                        > > Phil Chambers [ptchamb@s...] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)
                        > >
                        > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, delproposto wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > --- In sct-user@y..., "Chris Peterson" <clp@a...> wrote:
                        > > > I would like to thank all who contributed input to my inquiry on
                        > > > High-resolution encoders.
                        > > >
                        > > > Yesterday evening the 8194 encoders arrived and were installed.
                        > The
                        > > > high-resolution encoders GREATLY improved the telescopes pointing
                        > and
                        > > > was subsequently able to put 9 out of 10 objects in the CCDCameras
                        > > > field of view.
                        > > >
                        > > > I would also like to note that for the alignment stars process I
                        > also
                        > > > use the CCDCamera (ST-7)
                        > > >
                        > > > Technical Notes:
                        > > > Ultima 11 PEC
                        > > > 8000 encoders both axis.
                        > > > NGCMax 3.52
                        > > >
                        > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
                        > -
                        > > >
                        > > > > The situation is further confounded by the fact that very few
                        > 8196
                        > > > count encoders actually output a pulse every 2.3 arc minutes as
                        > you
                        > > > might expect. The only thing you really know for sure is that
                        > every
                        > > > fourth pulse is 9.4 arc minutes apart (which is, in reality, every
                        > > > rising edge on a single channel.) The intermediate pulses can have
                        > > > quite large position errors.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Chris
                        > > > >
                        > > > > _________________
                        > > > > Chris Peterson
                        > > > > http://www.cloudbait.com
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > > > From: "Michael P." <astromich@n...>
                        > > > > To: <sct-user@y...>
                        > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:08 PM
                        > > > > Subject: Re: [sct-user] Re: NGCMAX Encoder Resolution /
                        > Recommendations
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > > Sorry Greg,
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > I try to keep my messages short,,,
                        > > > > > "I think" the 8000 step encoder will improve a " mechanically
                        > > > perfect "
                        > > > > > scope
                        > > > > > ,,but not considerably...
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Visit the sct-user home page at:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
                        > > >
                        > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Visit the sct-user home page at:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Peter Argenziano
                        Hello Phil, The problem you describe probably isn t with Microsoft. Netscape has a hard time dealing with pages that use Java... which is quite ironic, since
                        Message 11 of 22 , Aug 2, 2002
                          Hello Phil,

                          The problem you describe probably isn't with Microsoft. Netscape has a hard
                          time dealing with pages that use Java... which is quite ironic, since Java
                          is a Sun product and Sun owns Netscape.

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "P T Chambers" <ptchamb@...>
                          To: <sct-user@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 9:21 AM
                          Subject: Re: [sct-user] Re: NGCMAX Encoder Resolution / Recommendations
                          /Thanks


                          > Hi
                          > My amazingly strong dislike of anything Micro$oft prevents me from using
                          > their website. My Macs with netscape either get blank or incomplete
                          > pages. No great loss since they obviously use MS to create it.
                          >
                          > However, I think that I have found a different source anyway. Thanks.
                          >
                          > ---------
                          > Phil Chambers [ptchamb@...] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)
                          >
                          > On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, gnowellsct wrote:
                          >
                          > > Mr Chambers:
                          > > Since you are handy with tools, you will want to check out the
                          > > usdigital.com web site.
                          > >
                          > > Gearing varies, but my particular story was this: I had Losmandy
                          > > default encoders, US digital 512s. (there are pix on the web site,
                          > > so you can find what you have). I was geared 8:1 which led to 4096.
                          > >
                          > > To get to 8192 and keep the same indestructible (I hope) Losmandy
                          > > gears, I bought the US Digital 1024s.
                          > >
                          > > I did something that Mr Losmandy did not. I bought the water
                          > > resistant (sealed) 1024s that cost something like $20-$30 more
                          > > apiece. If you're going to have all this stuff apart, you might as
                          > > well do it right. I have a suspicion though that the sealed encoders
                          > > are just encoders with some silicone caulk squirted into the exposed
                          > > hole. You could save some money, but why mess with OEM.
                          > >
                          > > Odds are you need a 1024 encoder, but if your gearing is different,
                          > > so may your needs.
                          > >
                          > > regards,
                          > > Greg Nowell
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In sct-user@y..., P T Chambers <ptchamb@s...> wrote:
                          > > > Hi
                          > > > Where did you order the encoders?? SInce I have a similar setup, I
                          > > am
                          > > > interested.
                          > > >
                          > > > ---------
                          > > > Phil Chambers [ptchamb@s...] (S.F. Bay Area - Calif. USA)
                          > > >
                          > > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, delproposto wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > > --- In sct-user@y..., "Chris Peterson" <clp@a...> wrote:
                          > > > > I would like to thank all who contributed input to my inquiry on
                          > > > > High-resolution encoders.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Yesterday evening the 8194 encoders arrived and were installed.
                          > > The
                          > > > > high-resolution encoders GREATLY improved the telescopes pointing
                          > > and
                          > > > > was subsequently able to put 9 out of 10 objects in the CCDCameras
                          > > > > field of view.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I would also like to note that for the alignment stars process I
                          > > also
                          > > > > use the CCDCamera (ST-7)
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Technical Notes:
                          > > > > Ultima 11 PEC
                          > > > > 8000 encoders both axis.
                          > > > > NGCMax 3.52
                          > > > >
                          > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > > -
                          > > > >
                          > > > > > The situation is further confounded by the fact that very few
                          > > 8196
                          > > > > count encoders actually output a pulse every 2.3 arc minutes as
                          > > you
                          > > > > might expect. The only thing you really know for sure is that
                          > > every
                          > > > > fourth pulse is 9.4 arc minutes apart (which is, in reality, every
                          > > > > rising edge on a single channel.) The intermediate pulses can have
                          > > > > quite large position errors.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Chris
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > _________________
                          > > > > > Chris Peterson
                          > > > > > http://www.cloudbait.com
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                          > > > > > From: "Michael P." <astromich@n...>
                          > > > > > To: <sct-user@y...>
                          > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:08 PM
                          > > > > > Subject: Re: [sct-user] Re: NGCMAX Encoder Resolution /
                          > > Recommendations
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Sorry Greg,
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > I try to keep my messages short,,,
                          > > > > > > "I think" the 8000 step encoder will improve a " mechanically
                          > > > > perfect "
                          > > > > > > scope
                          > > > > > > ,,but not considerably...
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Visit the sct-user home page at:
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Visit the sct-user home page at:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
                          > >
                          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > Visit the sct-user home page at:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                        • gnowellsct
                          And in any case, Mr Chambers, you should give US Digital a call on their 800 number, I think they have one, I found them friendly and got some questions
                          Message 12 of 22 , Aug 2, 2002
                            And in any case, Mr Chambers, you should give US Digital a call on
                            their 800 number, I think they have one, I found them friendly and
                            got some questions answered by a tech, who actually looked up whta
                            they were shippng to Losmandy to make sure that what I ordered would
                            be a compatible upgrade.

                            And I do stronly recommend the waterproofed versions.

                            regards,

                            greg nowell


                            -
                            > > http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index4.html
                            > >
                            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            > >
                            > >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.