Kevin Wigell wrote:

> Michael Covington wrote:
> <<1-star alignment is inherently inaccurate and very much at the mercy of
> leveling and site data. Do a 2-star alignment and you'll be pleasantly
> surprised. In my opinion, it was a mistake for them to even offer 1-star
> alignment -- it is a flawed concept. Two stars are necessary (and
> sufficient) to determine the position of the celestial sphere.>>
>
> Michael, I'm curious why you think the 1-star alignment should not have been
> offered. I always use the 2-star alignment before I begin an observing
> session, but there are times when I find the 1-star handy. For example, two
> nights ago I was setting up in bright twilight and I wanted to do a 2-star
> alignment on Arcturus and Pollux. Arcturus was easy, being high in the east,
> but Pollux was lost in the bright western twilight. So I did a quick 1-star
> alignment on Arcturus, then did a GoTo to Pollux. One look through the
> finder allowed me to find Pollux easily, then I did my 2-star alignment on
> Pollux, then Arcturus. I know I probably could have found another star
> besides Pollux to do the 2-star alignment, or just waited until it was
> darker, but the 1-star procedure sure made things simpler for me.
>
> OK, maybe that's not an overriding reason for offering 1-star alignment, but
> I can think of several other examples where it would come in handy.
>
> Why do you think the 1-star alignment is so flawed that it shouldn't be
> offered?
>
> On a slightly different topic, there have been many posts lately about
> getting the time and location correct in order to ensure accurate slewing.
> You've said it before, but apparently many missed it. Time and location
> entry in the LX-200 brains have NOTHING to do with accurate slewing, once
> you've done a good 2-star alignment. I haven't tried it myself, but I
> believe you can enter any time, date, and location that you want, and once
> you do a 2-star alignment, you should still be able to accurately slew.
> There are only two problems with this that I can think of: (1) The computer
> may tell you than an object is below the horizon when it is not, and (2)
> slewing to planets or the moon may not be correct. But for all deep sky
> objects, time and location should have NO EFFECT on accurate slewing. So
> look elsewhere for the source of your problem if your slewing is not
> accurate.
>
> If I'm wrong about the above, I'm very sure someone will correct me.
>
> Clear skies,
> Kevin Wigell

1-star alignment is not flawed when you consider its purpose. Check p. 33 of
the (1996) manual (version 0196-2). It is very clear that 1-star alignment is
to be used for permanently mounted, level scopes. That's what I have, and it
works just fine, as stated.


--
Michael J. Cook

Home Page - http://members.home.net/michaeljcook/
Observatory Plans - http://members.home.net/michaeljcook/obsnotes.html

ECU RESOURCES:
* User Object Files - http://members.home.net/michaeljcook/ecu/
* ECUsers Discussion Forum - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ecusers
MEADE RESOURCES:
* Meade Advanced Product Users Group - http://www.mapug.com/
* AstroArchive - http://www.astroarchive.com/t/search.asp

Take a bite Out of Light Pollution: Support IDA - http://www.darksky.org

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Re: [M] LX200 align/slew, R. A. Greiner
Next message: Re: [M]: JMI NGF-S Focuser, Michael J. Cook
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: Re: [M] LX200 align/slew, Barre Spencer
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: Re: [M] LX200 align/slew, R. A. Greiner