Gordon,

I have mixed feelings about the Magellan. The Magellan has it's share of
problems. I am currently running v2.1 (as far as I know, it is the most
current). The Unit does work, but it requires a lot of setup time.

Specifically, your telescope needs to be accurately polar aligned.

Based on my experiences, the "FIND" function is a waste of time. The
planets are incorrect as well.

Now the good news: the "SYNC" command. If you are accurately polar aligned,
and if your mount is level, then you have a shot at something useful when
using SYNC (short for synchronize).

The Magellan allows you to align the encoders on one or two stars (I've
found a single star alignment works better). There is an online spread
sheet of 100+ alignment stars available.

The unit tells you how accurate your alignment is on a scale of 1 to
(around) 110. 100 is the best and it is the rating you want to maintain.
You can begin keying in objects near that star.

To maintain accuracy, you "SYNC" on objects (stars & deep sky objects) once
you've found and centered them. This serves to maintain accurate alignment
of the Magellan. To observe objects in another part of the sky, SYNC on
another star and repeat.

The Magellan also can be connected to a computer for use with
Planetarium/sky charting software. The computer connection also allows for
firm ware upgrades. But Meade has been VERY slow releasing anything new.

The Magellan is very well integrated into the LX50. Compartments in the
fork arm and base allow for the encoders and gears. The Magellan computer
integrates the hand paddle as well, reducing the number of boxes extending
from your telescope.

I know that the other DSCs (JMI/Lumicon/Celestron/et al) can be made
compatible with the LX50. I've heard they work really well. But, they do
not have a SYNC command (to the best of my knowledge). And since I've never
seen one in action, I cannot give you a very complete picture on their
accuracy. I think there is one LX50 owner who has a non Magellan unit.
Maybe he/she will discuss it. I know I have been thinking about buying a
unit from Lumicon just to see how accurate it is.

Bottom line, the Magellan is only as accurate as the amount of effort you
put into using it. For the most part, I like it. It took me a while to get
the unit to provide reasonably accurate results. I can find objects better
than using the standard setting circles. Further more, I use a polar
alignment scope to provide observational accurate alignments. I highly
recommend some type/method of accurate polar alignment if you want the
Magellan. Finally, the firmware desperately needs to be updated. If Meade
will provide it, maybe then the Magellan will be better.

Best of luck

PS if you wish to see some info about the Magellan II, you can visit the
LX50 AstroGarden. Magellan info is located on the Electronic Topics page in
the Technical Archives:
<http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/1107/page6.html>

> -----Original Message-----
To you Magellan owners (and to a lesser degree, LX 200
> owners), is it worth it? Or is my Telrad and patience the better
> investment, with my accessory money going to other fun astronomical
> accessories?
> I would appreciate your input.

JDK
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/1107/

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: LX200 Dec Stops Responding, Ric L Ecker
Next message: [M]: Re: Polaris - or not., Lawrence Harris
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: Magellan ?, Cintex
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: Magellan ?, Gordon