- Well I had my cgem done by Ed some time ago but with failures with cameras and lack of funds to replace these items I could only guess at what the improvementMessage 1 of 1 , Feb 1, 2013View Source
Well I had my cgem done by Ed some time ago but with failures with cameras and lack of funds to replace these items I could only guess at what the improvement was. Balance was much easier and I could still do planets, which are done by dropping the mount with only polar alignment being close, so not much could be determine.
Getting a camera which could do DSO’s allowed me to test the HyperTuned cgem. What is different is that I have a second cgem without being hypertuned so a direct compare could be done with these two mounts. There is a huge difference in the ability of the Hypertuned mount in autoguiding. What I thing the problem is that the grease hinders the mount, and even messes up the manufacture from getting these mounts for the real world. Some autoguiders rely much on the owner to tune the settings, some fail to understand what should be adjusted, but able to apply the first rule of survival, “Always blame someone else”. Have a standalone which sets parameters on gain and calibration and displays the effort in guiding on a graph. There is enough shown on the graph to show the HyperTuned mount is making corrections with about 80% less effort then the cgem which is not Hypertuned.
These last two nights of testing shows this is not your factory cgem, and although I have equipment issues to still work through (other than the mount) would state that other than some adjustments within the mount to compensate for backlash (Which works) places the HyperTuned cgem in tracking and guiding with the AP900 or Paramount class. (Without considering weight load).
If you are imaging this is not an option, it is a necessity.