I have read all of the pages on polar alignment from the archives, plus
Chuck's and Carl's write ups.

I have used the scope for a year in alt/az. Pointing accuracy has always
been very good. The only addition to that is that at times you may have to
sync on more than 2 stars to get the accuracy to stay in the center portion
of a 12.5mm reticle ep. As you would expect across the whole sky slews will
cause the accuracy to degrade but still within the 12.5.

I used the iterative method 2 outings and 2 times each outing. The 1st time
the other star was Fomalhaut and the other was last night and Markab. Both
times it would take a least 6 iterations to center both stars. I used the
method out of the archives where you half adjust the alignment star with the
keypad and center Polaris with the wedge. After centering both, I tighten
the wedge (center bolt and two bolts in slots so that azimuth cannot be
changed) to the tripod keeping Polaris centered. I then , double checked the
other alignment star and it is still centered. When I say centered I mean in
the center of a astrometric eyepiece on the center line of the center scale.
I was very excited when seeing it put the star centered on Polaris and the
alignment star, after all it was quite a few iterations but it appeared to be
successful. I repeated the slews back and forth to prove it could keep them
centered.

The problem comes when slewing to another star. It not in even in the FOV of
the 26mm ep. It is in the viewfinder. Last night I tried Fomalhaut after
alignment, the other night Vega. If I sync up on the star and then slew back
to the alignment star it is off, by about the same amount. If I then sync the
alignment star back up and then slew to Polaris it to is off.

Carl wrote that the iterative method works well only if your pointing
accuracy is good. Based on the alt/az use, can I say that my polar pointing
accuracy is good ? Or is it whole different situation? I thought because of
the alt/az pointing that I had a good scope for accuracy and did not have the
fork or orthogonal type problems. Carl further than recommends the drift
method and states it works regardless of pointing accuracy. If I do the drift
alignment, I suspect I will then be polar aligned but what good is that if I
can't find (goto) an object to place it on the CCD.

Tonight I am going to try the drift alignment but I can't see how that would
help the pointing accuracy. I don't understand why the scope works so well
in alt/az either.

Are there any suggestions that I could try? If after the iterative
alignment, I position Polaris in the center of the eye piece and turn off the
drives what should happen ? Should I get a little circle ? How many
seconds/minutes across? (.8 arc minute). Would this prove I got the polar
alignment correct? I am assuming the pointing accuracy is my fault because I
do not have it properly polar aligned.

I do want to mention over the past year I have learned so much from this list
and I thank you all.

Rick in Tucson.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: [M]: Re: Re: remove corrector on Mak, Glen Sharp II
Next message: MAPUG ADMIN Re: [M]: Re: These files, saved, Email address hidden